Skip to main content

Full text of "Declassified US Government Internal Documents on Military Research and Arming of the Heavens"

See other formats


. . The reorganization of USAF aerospace defense and 
surveillance and warning resources, under consideration since 
the spring of 1977,-finally. got underway in Jate 1979. On 
1 October parts of "Aerospace Defense Command's, -mission,' as 
delineated in AFR 23-9,' "Organization and Mission - Field," 
together with related units, Manpower, and systems, were trans- 
ferred to Tactical Air Command, and. Air Force! Communications 
Service. 1 4,The remainder -went .'to, StrategicsAir- Command on-.:; 
1 December. 2 ,TAC became responsibles&r dijy-to day organijgt 

; .,- zation-,:training,^equippingfsad«inistiati'onSrfd:jrepar3tion , .'''' i - 
- of Aerospace" ?def ehse ^Interceptors i"an'deatmospTieric -warningte-" ■< i- ■ 
radars; SAC .had the;same..responsibility.t£oraii5sile.;waniing£ •; 

./'...andispacecsurveillance^ystems^and AFCS tooi^over most of 

: .ADC0M'5:.fomor.»coHttiunications 3iid<electronics|assets.sJAAl50:- -v : 
.on ,1 December ,£:a new direct ■reporting , uMt 7 £&erosjiace~-'De--Kv •' 
fense Center, was designated and activated '^Colorado ",i.:^-' . 

, Springs.? Its new mission regulation? stated:?^ '[■:■ ■'■'-;'■'■■ 

.'I- ;.v. J... ADC provides staff support forJUr _ t 

. Force functions and responsibilitieT'xequired*.*. .- - 

'^^tojp^prijtjie SORAD/ADCOH strategicSerosjace^^ji^f ' \- 
,w "" ■ defense'-fissfon.'tft seT^eTastSr^Fo^TfielS'l' 'g"* 1-3 ?" 
agency-with coordinating authority £*J-irit~ 
integrating Air Force activities m the-st'rate- 
gic aerospace defense mission area. "^if':^:^ ■■■ ■ '■';'■ 

After 1 December the major command ADCOM no-longer 'had a -■;-.. 
mission, but to the end of 1979 it had nofyef.beeh of- ' ' .-' ■'■ 
ficially disestablished. '.,1. t-- l '} r **' v ' '-* fp-* 

\ _ " The 'reorganization chaigel .'oniy-'thViainer ' 

in which the USAF henceforth would manage the* resources it 
devoted J:o_ aerospace defense.' "' Operational -con'-" 
troi of those 'resources' remained with the'\Joint Chiefs 
of Staff specified command ADCOK and the Durational, command 
North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) . ADCOM (speci- 
fied) operated within the JCS structure and so received 

Coordinating authority was defined as authority to 
require consultation but not to compel agreement. If the 
parties concerned were unable to obtain agreement, the » 
matter would be referred to the appointing authority, i.e., 

direction from the President through the Chairman of the 
JCS. The JCS Unified Command plan, unchanged in 1979, 
said the' specified conunand' s responsibilities were to 
exercise operational control over US forces assigned, at- 
tached, of otherwise made available for Warning of attack 
and defense of the nation against air and space attack 
and. to support other unKied and specified commands. The 
broader responsibility for warning and. defense of the US', 
Mask v and Canada remained with the binational command " 
NORAD. It took direction from both the JCS and the Chief 
of Canada's "ffefence Staff. Its functions were set down 
in a Terms of Reference (TOE) document agreed upon by 
Canada and the US..; The latest edition of the TOR had \ _, 
been published in'.early,.I9755and remained :mf effect through,^ 

. out":1979 .'J,Since ,J>y;.agHeiie^l^'4oci^^(B^^egoi]^v^'^ 
ated every ;fiye -years j amew'.one was due.tosbejpublished'svi •-.. 
irifiSSO i sAsked by-theiJCS.forntstrecommendatioiis.and- v. r. - 

* cosimentSi cnichanges : «hich ^should: .hescons idsredlduring the - - , 
upcoming. Tenegotiation|5:N0RADliisted':.the*follo™g jn.f • - . ,' 
August 1979. 6 ? ' ' "> . > 

. -. 1, 36th governments i should agre'e~to;the ss- ■ ."" 
sentiality of CINCKORAB .beiag ''the prime.. advocate 

\. -.for North-American sir defense ^ jolicyyj^octriiie, . J; 

\ . , programming! and operations*" > ? \' *' * y;;: . 

■ 2.- Both should agree to '.cooperate: to the ~» ' 
\ 'fullest on space".»ttersf?- .:*:■..: ■''-.: s'-- 

■ 3. 'Both should agree that properly cleared 
key Canadian personnel " v • .be granted full access 
to all.„classified information and directives deemed: 
essential for. the perfpimanee-of the NORAD mission-- -,j^ 
material that'"would normally be "avaiTable'to: CINC i; '""I 
NORAD fori.the execution of his full/rage' of respon- 


Change of 

On 1 Decemoer 1979 General James E, Hill, already 
Commander in Chief of NORM, of the specified command ADCOM, 
and of the major USAF command ADCOM, took command of the 
new Aerospace Defense Center upon its designation and acti- 
vation.8 General Hill, served in those several capacities 
for all but two days of 1979. On 24 August he announced 
his retirement effective 31 December. 9 

A successor was not immediately named, ' - 
but speculation that he would be an officer of lower rank 
• than pastJORAD commanders* was confirmed when, in Sep- 
sitembeiif I'hejISinbtifiectjCafiadaft through diplomatic channels, . 
i*that thefAir^b'rcelintendedireducing the position to a * ' s 
s ^three-star;billefegA?congre55i6hal mandate-'to reduce one 
• i"Mr Force vfour|starSpo*sition in FT ,78 had. prompted the .. . 
■If ictio« r 'Tiii^h^JI|^«^»siiid.,th»t "■; '.'.'in no way should, 
■ithio'authorizedsgradeuchange,'he. perceived or viewed asaj'' - 
-■' lesseninj*of3the importance 1 attached to the aerospace de-' '; 
' I fense aissioh/;area"or;m the. capability of the United 
S.tates to supportr its North American air defense respon- 
sibilities."lv The; Canadian Deputy Commander in Chief, 
NORAD, Lieutenant: : ,.GeMral.iK. t fc:;.le»is, reported to the . 
s ADCOM .staffethat.le-'had: expressed his personaladissatis- . 
JiactJLoiyiSfe?^6j!gjdU|^^0mwa, birtj.t i seeme4 i his w ^ 
\'gove™enS3^&enTe'ass"ufe"d-that the' US 'was now no' less 
~ coimitted;to'-i*str'onpcontiIental air -The ■.■?'■ 
Conservative Pariyi' which: :c'ame : to power in -late 1979, viewed 
the matter no /differently. * 2 ■ o n 21 December, the Air Force 
announced Lieutenant General James V. Hartinger, commander 
of TAC'sJwelfth Air Force/ would succeed General Hill. 15 
On 28 December iGenera^ Hill turned over his command to 
" LleutenanrJ-GeheralvHartingeRan a -ceremony at Peterson "8j ! \ 
AFB and retired,:;ejidiBg a distinguished 37 year military 
career.**!* , W.-'s-. ■■,. 

T . '' Since -the formation of KORAD in 1957 its commander 
had always been a USAF four-star general. 

**""' General Hill remained in Colorado Springs, and on 
. 3 January 1580 was named executive vice president and manager 
of the city's Chamber of Commerce. 

Organizing Aerospace Defense for the Eighties and Beyond 

The Reorganization 

The air defense system protecting North America 
was built in the 1950s and early 1960s principally for 
protection against Soviet bomber attack. The decade 1965- 
75 brought a shift in the threat away from bombers and in 
favor of ballistic missiles. This development, coupled 
with a U.S. policy decision not to deploy a ballistic ..' 
; missile defcnsc.iystem,. resulted in decreased eaphasis'on 
: the ' damage limitationvaissions 'of the North .'Americaftair.: .: ,- ;i - 
defense' systea,; : reductions its 5ize,\,and;delays,;fn;its-;;* ; S 
modernization. -^Several Air Force-studies examined^thev' '■■■'.■ ''~. : 
organizational' raji'fications of that change and 'recommended " ~ 
the'najor'-Air;Eorce::coii3and"headquarters associated'with ' ■ 
the mission be dissolved and the assets it managed dis- •• ."-"•'. 
tributcd among ;several other major commands; But although 
the Air Force continued to. reduce the amount of' money and 
manpower' it devoted to the aerospace defense mission, it 
did not take the final step. Congressional criticism, 
however, in iate-1976;and early 1977 of costly redundancies 
in management ; of^the>erospace- defense mission converged 
"Vitlnffir Fb"rcelefef*of«StafffGeneralJ)avid Jonestown _____ 
determination to: achieve greater' savings and his -interest"^ *~^ 
in making organizational changes which; would strengthen -' 
SAC's bid for the future space mission, in early"1977, 
at General Jones' request, a special Air Staff study group 
prepared a "Proposal For: A Reorganization of USAF Air 
Defense and Surveillance/Warning. Resources." General Daniel 
James, Jr., CIKCNORAD,.. offered an alternative for making 
substantial' reductions in headquarters manning while re- •:. .,, 
taining the existing organizational structure, but without 
success. The final draft of the study emerged in January 
1978. Nicknamed the "Greenbook", it became the blueprint 
for disestablishing ADC0M.1S With General .lames' retire- 
ment in December '1977, and the assignment of General James 
E. Hill as CINCNORAD/ADCOM, the command's efforts concen- 
trated, on implementing the Greenbook. General Hill believed 
it essential that CINCNORAD/CINCAD continue to have clear 
end-to-end control of essential warning systems, and be the 
primary spokesman for improvements to existing systems and 
for the acquisition of new ones. It followed, it his opinion, 
that the residual Air Force management headquarters in 
Colorado Springs should be the focal point for planning and 
the prioritization of aerospace defense programs in the Air 

Force budgetary process. 

Consultation with Foreign Governments . (S-Decl-84) 
Secretary of Defense approval of the reorganization plan 
was contingent on the satisfactory completion of consul- 
tations with the foreign governments concerned (Canada, 
Australia, Denmark, Turkey, Great Britain, New Zealand, 
Italy, Korea, and Iceland). It was expected such dis- 
cussions would be little more than perfunctory in nature 
and that approval would cone quickly, *6 


»ryS^«*^*s*« ^T>»*5-™»«^,*a^-/Sr?***^ 

Since its officers were thoroughly ante- '* 
grated into the fiORAD structure, Canada had been aware all 
along of the Air Force's intentions to reorganize ADCOM. : _ 

^Canadian^Defeitce.Minister.flarney Hanson had no -particular §f 

.;Objection*:to the proposal when it was presented him in . 

'December 1978, but he"said_a final Canadian position would 
not be taken until the Department of National Defence (NDHQ) 
had completed its examination. Department of National 
Defence (NDHQ) concerns, expressed' to the US air* .attache in 
a 22 December meeting, were no different in substance than 
those which had been raised about a year and one-half earlier 
by Canadian officers at NORAB headquarters. (These had 
centered on the effect the reorganization would have on 

'CINCNORAD's control of his resources, and the apparent greater 
linkage which would be created between Canada and SAC.) 

■ for their'exanina oU8 SKTKJ^ 1 ^^- 
information with the instrucdm TJ <f lUotial USAF 
*• concluded as Sn a" p " s bu ^LW^ 5hould 
assurances that -NDHOwa s "?taff^;*? e BS '«"3che received 
as possible 19 Sonrt tS ■ 5 g th \P ro P<>sal as rapidly 

^g^^Wn:foriurthe r -cllMllgnJ^Si|!|« h 
dealing Kith-Canadian particination ™ ti» „„ Westions 

aehts/23- wKlji-ij;,' '"^„ ln ," s | te |! c ? e fense requires 
tion pWse, ^^^^^<^ ' 

v JaitialJIami™. p, ol ,i,„„ , ~ i 

to. tarTJ^ontMeireor^fi&iiSlsiP iP- S®SW WiP^iming 

zation plan.' .ReDresem3t,v«". U PP ? 1 '- of tte-reorgani- 
first & teXS? f eel' ™^°M Y 
in Colorado Springs 9-11 JanSw^di ^feSVS convened' 
iapleaentation sch'duies SH 7 *" 7 •*'' "W^tfSiierai ■ 

namung docuirents of the' threfStfiia L *^W ™« 

imposed since April 19?? (?L blseliM ST*} " W>rltloads 
the Greenbookl but Air- ?}»?? :!f M ma ?" ln 2 da:e use| i "! 
total would have to bf a e llif !£M V'" ' 

The Space and Missile Warning System Operations Working 
Group, for example,' reported to the larger group that sig- 
nificant differences existed between the number of personnel 
required in those specialities and the number currently 
available. A future meeting at Air Force Military Personnel 
Center would probably be necessary to work out details.*" 

The conferees agreed on a timetable for the next 
several 'months. The Air Force master programming' plan was ' 
to be ready by 1 February. Concurrent with its preparation, 
ADGOM and the three gaining commands would complete their 
plans detailing major actions and tine phasing to accomplish 
the reorganization and distribute them for coordination in . 
early February. .. Final plans were to be sentsto; Air ;For,cej;ini : , 
early March.™ These 'were all preparatory to publican- 1 ""^*" 
: nouncement on 15 March;' Allowing for a -period of.?60'days r fe" 
'for public coMent^and/barriGgcomplications-^arising.irpn-'.,,' 
/it. the reorganization was expected, to get underway ^on IS ... 
May. Transfer of assets to TAC and SAC; would ^ake^lacej vM ; 
1 July, and between 1 J July arid 1' October SAC would acquire" 
space surveillance and missile warning assets. 27.; 

The sooner public antquncement was made the -'..- 
.better because .then the Air For'cef!could take.;initial. action 
■• on personnel , affected by the' reorganization^ , ; 'The'dite IS " : .. : >...' 
^arch,-planne44ir^n'.early.4.3Bwa.SjalMady,*two#pnthsAla.ter*v : ~ 
than the date originally projected. 'As mentioned^ consulta- 
tions with foreign: "governments were hot completed^ until ■■';"■:- 
February. The first of March was then' projected, but it too 
passed by, and further delay ensued when OSD decided to in- 
clude the ADCOM closure as part of a more comprehensive - 
listing of .base closures and unit inactivations. Personnel 
" planning waV thereby adversely affected.. Until the announce-, ' 
ment no steps could be taken to freeze personnel in critical^ . 
specialties and .as time went on the resource of overseas, 
returnees, which had beer expected to help fill some command 
requirements, dried up as they were sent elsewhere. 

Even as planning for the reorganization be- 
gan in early 1979, Secretary of the Air Force Stetson asked . 
the Air Staff to make a last zero-based examination of the 
action to determine if organizational and resource management 
objectives outlined in the Greenbook were still valid. ® 

* The problem of equitable manning is discussed 
later in this chapter. 

'. Some question remained that they were. Undersecretary of 
the Air Force Dr. Hans Mark wrote General Alien in the 
middle of February that while he had gone along with the 
reorganization "reluctantly" the previous summer when it 
was being reviewed within the Office of the Secretary of 
the Air Force, he had recently been inspired to raise the 
issue again. Mark agreed that when cutbacks pinched in it 
was Bore preferable to eliminate entirely organizations 
which were no longer productive than to make cuts across 
the board and thus penalize more viable organizations. He 
remained, however, "not comfortable" with that part of the 
'reorganization which would place in one command assets for 
ibothstrategicswarningand retaliation. Operational con- 
■«tioSjofsKarningssyste»s.'K3S:Tiotireally an issue, v .he said, ■ r « 
fsincejiifciemained'Sith-'the -specified command ADCOM and .the 
";binatiSniljC<)yaiid r ,l)01iAD,' but systems advocacy was. Tech- ; , 
• nology Jfor 'indicationsand' warning, systems required just ■; ■:- 
"■ -as JKCfc'ffl'sSjiA'Jte: Mark's opinion, as did thafcfor ■nuclear, 
:/retaliation^^nd^ : he'feared..that with the loss : of ■management. 
'respohsibility-Uhe residual headquarters in Colorado Springs 
would soon become unable to develop new technical require- 
ments/": If SAC acquired management of these systems, it 
would/have.the technical .capability to manage them, but Dr. 
, Mark^ound^tjliatd^to believe it wouldgive them the same ; 
pridfity^it-;wo"uJd .give to hew offensive weapons such as the 
, 'M^^^atk^ai«he^ould^ike^o*s'ee v an*organi , za*tional'-sepa-;-'-- 
ratibhlqf-minageiek as r'liell. as. operational control, of indi-' 
cations 'and' warning systems; and he believed it would be ... : 
worthwhile to look at another "... combination of the ■ 
existing commands and' services which could be worked out if 
ACCOM is abolished so that the separation of which I speak 
can be : maintained."3C . 

'.f-l '-'.'"' ■""■■' ' General Hill had a suggestion along those* 
lines;' He- wrote~General-Allen in late February that should^ 
the Air Force believe it imperative to proceed with the re- 1 
organization, it. could disestablish the major command, ADCOM, 
and assign its atmospheric defense assets to TAC, but not 
assign space and missile warning assets- to SAC. He proposed 
these should be left where they were and used as the nucleus 
of a new command to which other space assets would eventually 
be assigned. General Hill questioned whether the reorgani- 
zation should proceed at all. T,he question was not whether 
the reorganization could be made to work, but whether it 
would achieve its stated goals. The zero-based review being 
undertaken by the Air Staff should, according to the ADCOM^ 
commander, address the three objectives of the reorganization 

as Stated in the Greenbook: improved warfighting capabil- 
ity, reduction in management overhead, and reduction in 
manpower. General Hill concluded the reorganization would 
not in fact achieve those objectives: warfighting capa- 
bilities would not be enhanced, management overhead would 
be reduced but at the cost of established Air Force princi- 
ples or organization and management, and the modest manpower 
savings realized did not seem to justify the major reorgan- 
ization contemplated. General Hill pointed out that it was '• 
not too late for the Air Force to change its institutional' - 
mind, and he recommended to the Chief of Staff that the 
reorganization either not proceed at all or that it be 
oriented to the space organization suggested above. 5 * 

.;," . ■;' . ,, The.'Zero-based review/conducted 'by' a ' ' **■ 
working group ; headed by Major General Daryle -Tripp ■ (AF/XOX) , 
did not change the decision to reorganize. The results pre-, 
sented to' Secretary. Stetson on 26 February are summarized.: 52 

1. ^Manpower and cost avoidances (790 manpower spaces 
and $13.8 million in annual recurring costs after. the first 
year) could be realized. 

2, The reorganization would not necessarily improve 
warfighting capabilities, but it would not degrade them 
either. . ,*„>■* 

3. CINCNORAD/CINCAD would continue to have the same 
access for purposes of advocacy as then existed, and as com' 
mander of the USAF headquarters element he would continue to 
advocate USAF air defense and surveillance/warning operational 
doctrine and requirements to the Secretary of the Air Force, 
CSAF, and Hq USAF. 

4, Kith regard to consideration then being given to 
future management of' space systems, the reorganization did 
not '.'... necessarily preempt further considerations and 
eventual selection of a future management scheme £ot those 

5. Further clarification of the mission, specific 
functions, manning, and location of the new headquarters 
element in Colorado Springs was needed. 

6. The basic recommendations of the January 1978 study 
should be adopted. 

Secretary Stetson agreed the reorganization should continue 
and directed attention be given to fulfillment of paragraph 
five above. He also asked that a name other than Air Force 
Element NORAD/ADCOM be selected for the new headquarters. 5 ' 
General Allen transmitted these directions to General Hill. 3 ' 
The CINCNORAD replied in the middle of April that his staff 
had been, working hard to develop manpower requirements and 
new mission and function statements for the new headquarters 
and to find a more suitable name for it. He recommended 
Aerospace Defense Center as a designation descriptive of the 
organization's mission. The "absolute minimum" number of .. 
spaces required was 1,573. Facilities requirements for the ■ 
new headquarters were being studied by a SAC/ADCOM team, he 
said, and the results would be ready by the end of April. , j 
General. Hill pledged ADCOM would try to make the transition '" 
work as smoothly as possible so as not to degrade the nation's 
defensive capability. 35 

:■'■ ' The focal point of ADCOM planning was the DCS/.- 
Plans Reorganization Office, formed in mid-January 1979 and 
headed by Lieutenant Colonel Ron Demijohn.* A Reorganization 
Working Group, composed of representatives from all deputates 
and Special Staff Elements, provided staff support. 36 The 
Reorganization Office's first large order of business was 
preparation of a draft ADCOM Programming Plan (PPlan) 79-1, 
"Aerospace Defense Reorganization." The c draft PPJan^con-^.^,^ 
assumptions regarding the course the reorganization would 
take, the residual responsibilities to be left CINCNORAD/ 
CINCAD/Air Force Element, NORAD/ADCOM, and individual staff 
actions to be taken and when they would be taken. 3 ' Ready 
by early February, the draft PPlan went to TAC, SAC, and AFCS 
for coordination, • In return, ADCOM received for comment the 
draft plans of those commands. Coordination revealed disa- .' 
greement over the specific functions of the command which 
would exercise operational control and those of the commands 
which would be responsible for day-to-day resource manage 1 
ment. 38 Because of these and other differences, approval^ 
of the programming plans which went to Air Force in the mid- 
dle of March was delayed. Headquarters USAF advised that 23 
series regulations (Organization and Mission-Field) and 

T~ In early October 1979 It Col P. M. Fleming suc- 
It Col Demijohn as the Reorganization Project Officer. 

memorandums of agreement, and not programming plans, were 
the proper places wherein to solve them, and added, "Mission 
directives should clearly define PPBS /planning, Programming, 
and Budgeting System/ and operational requirements, advocacy 
responsibilities, and the inter-command relationships neces- 
sary to carry out these responsibilities." 39 .New mission 
directives (drafts of a new APR 23-9, Organization and 
Mission-Field, and of NORAD/ADCOM Regulation 20-4, Head- 
quarters NORAD/ADCOM Organization and Functions)' were also 
in preparation at that time. Coordination was continuing 
when the Air Force made public its reorganization proposal. 

Public -Response. . .On 29 March 1979 the Air Force. ' 
plan to reorganizesaerospace- defense forces ,»as; announced as"; 
part of a' long. list- of Defense Department base closures and 
realignments. .Highlighted as savings from the ADCOM action 
were 790 civilian and military spaces and $12.9 million annu- 
ally in cost -avoidance (one time costs the first year would 
be' $4.9 million). Actions to transfer ADCOM's resources to 
SAC, TAC, and AFCS, and then subsequently to dissolve the , 
command, were to begin in the summer of 1979 and be completed 
over an 18-month period. In accordance with Title 1C, United 
States Code, Section 2687-, the Air Force said it would not 
take any irrevocable actions for 60 days, until 20 May, to 
allow for public review and comment. '" Upon the announce- 
\menti*General^Hill^ent*a 4 person3l w cbmmunftation'to his** - ; '■'"'■" 
headquarters staff and field organizations explaining | 
Air Force efforts to streamline its activities did not mean 
its commitment to defense of the continent had weakened. 
CINCNORAD said while some people would lose their jobs and 
some would have to move to other locations, ail possible 
would be done to minimize the effect of the change on every- 
one. He asked all to keep a positive attitude during the f . 
complicated undertaking ahead ahd'to do their best to keep '■ 
the defense of North America at a high level of effective- 
ness. ^1 

Members of Colorado's Congressional delegation 
and Colorado Springs civic and business leaders appeared 
skeptical that the "ends of national defense would be best 
served by the change, but they expressed no great concern for 
its economic implications. Representatives Ken Kramer (R-Colo) 
of Colorado Springs and Ray Kogovsek (D-Colo) of Pueblo, and 
Senators Gary Hart (D-Colo) and William Armstrong (R-Colo), 
stated they would attempt to get the decision reversed, hut 
all jdmitted it would be difficult to do so. Business leaders 

could foresee no long-term effect on the local economy 
from the reorganization. The influx of new firms over the 
past several years was steadily changing the character of 
the work force from one with a heavy military character to 
a civilian emphasis, a trend most believed was a good thing. 
The total military presence was not expected to change 
significantly since the Any expected to continue to main- 
tain substantial forces at Fort Carson. '2 The housing 
market, a critical barometer of economic vitality in the 
area, was strong. 43 Economic statistics issued by the 
Pikes Peak Area Council in early April showed continued 
business vitality, a condition which suggested that even 
the limited impact projected by the Air Force environmental 
assessment would- not in fact occur, because the assessment-:-- -'- 
had 'used two-year old statistics.*'' '..• ■'■ : ■ . ", 

Local examination of the Air Force proposal ■ 
began when members of the Colorado Congressional delegation ■ 
announced, on H'JSpril, establishment of an ADCOH Task .Force. 
The 13-iiember committee, representing a broad spectrum of 
Colorado Springs' political, business, labor, religious, and 
military communities, would solicit public reactions, analyze 
the decision and its impact on the area, and report its find- 
ings to Colorado Congressmen for their use in Congressional . . 
hearings set foT late April and early May. important 
Task.Force. goal -was J.'Jo.. succeed„iii, getting the rf AA'r*F.orce?to<- ,« 
''justify Mi itV proposals to the people in this area who will be 
affected by the cutback," a public meeting with Air Force 
officials was arranged for 20 April. ^ 

An estimated 200 people gathered in Centennial 
Hall that Friday afternoon, lieutenant General A, C. Green- 
leaf, DCS/Prograis and Evaluation, Headquarters USAF, the 
principal Air Force spokesman, was assisted by a team of 
military and civilian experts from the Air Staff and Office 
of the Secretary of the Air Force. General Greenleaf spoke 
of the ADCOM decision as one in a continuum of management 
actions which had been going on for as long as the Air Force 
had been in being, but which had received particular atten- 
tion during the past five years. Personnel costs were going 
up even as total personnel resources were dwindling. The Air 

* The Air Force Environmental Impact Assessment 
(F.IA) will be discussed at greater length later in this 

Military Uses of Space: 1946-1991 

Published by: 
Chadwyck-Healey Inc., 1101 K 

advanced capabilities Materials were identrtied. obtained, assembled, and indexedby the National 
Security Archive, a non-profit, Washington, D.C. based research institute and library. The microfiche 
3f Space: 1946-1991 Guideand Index. 

Arrangement of Information on the Microfiche: 

The documents are arranged in chronological order. A unique identification number is assigned to 

each document. Each new document begins a new iine on the microfiche. 

Document Quality: 

The quality of the original materia! varies, in the case of esehdocument, Chadwyck-Healey Inc. has 

filmed the best copy made available by the National Security Archive. 

Microfiche Numbering: 

The unique identification numbers assigned to the documents are listed in the top right hand comer 

of the microfiche tills strip. 

Technical Deta: 

Producing Laboratory: Chadwyck-Healey inc. 

Date of Publication of Microfiche Edition: 1991 

Format: 49 frame. 1 05mm x 143mm silver halide microfiche, 24x nominal reduction 

The arrangement of the pages on microfiche is the property of Chadwyck-Healey Inc. Paper copies 
of the arrangement of pages on microfiche may be made without the written permission of 
Chadwyck-Healey Inc. for internal and reference use only and not for resale. 

Distribution Outside the USA: 

Chadwyck-Healey Ltd., Cambridge Place, Cambridge C82 1 NR, England 

Document Quality: 

Through the useof the Freedom of Information Act and an extensive network of government, media, 

and academic contacts, the National Security Archive has developed this varied collection of primary 
materials. Just as the type of materials included varies, so does the quality of each document. 

The National Security Archive has madeevery effort to provide Chadwyck-Healey Inc. with the best 
quality, most complete copy available of each document Chadwyck-Healey inc. has faithfully 
reproduced on microfiche exactly what was provided by the National Security Archive. 

Many of tfiedocurnentsindudedin this publication were previously classified bythe U.S. Government 
and even when declassified, sections or pages may be obliterated by the government due to the 
potentially sensitive information contained in them. 

cables, memoranda, intelligence reports, briefing papers, Congressional reports, official letters, and 


and processing cannot entirely overcome. 

This isa rich and varied source of primary documents made available for research and al! microfiche 
have been produced to the highest quality and conform io AliM, 831 and ANSI standards. 

Force was attempting to continue to meet its obligations by 
reducing supervisory overhead in management headquarters and 
using the authorizations saved to fill requirements in com- 
batant elements. In the particular case of ADCOM, however, 
General Greenleaf said the impetus came from Congress, spe- 
cifically from the House and Senate Appropriations Subcom- 
mittees, whose concerns about possible costly duplication 
or functions between ADCOM, SAC, and TAC were voiced in 
hearings in the winter of 1976-77 and eventually included in 
a House report of Jun 1977, The Air Force had responded by 
examining its options for accomplishing the mission by a 
redistribution of aerospace defense elements to several other 
commands, and had decided it was feasible to do so. The 

. action, General Greenleaf explained, did not mean the Air 
Force 'had -decided to pay less attention to aerospace defense: 
several recently approved and planned enhancements of the 
network would maintain an effective system with a fraction of 

.the manpower .-presently required. He also emphasized that the 
change would have no effect on CHOORAD's overall operational 
control of North American air defense. Closing out his re- 
marks, the AiT Force DCS/Programs and Evaluation detailed the 
changes which the Air Force would make under the proposal and 
the timetable for same/ 6 

. . . . The greater part of the three and one-half hour 
_ meeting was taken, up with questions raised by members of, the 
" ta'sk'jnfce^and^frbin the floor (predominately TroV retired*"' " *"' 
officers),- and responses from General Greenleaf and his 
colleagues, on two broad issues; the economic effect of the 
reorganization on Colorado Springs and the general effect of 
the change on the defense posture of the nation. Local 
business and civic leaders expressed general dissatisfaction 
with the Air Force's Environmental Impact Assessment because 
it lacked enough specific detail to enable them to prepare ~ 
plans (principally budgetary in nature) which would mitigate' 
the socio-economic effects of the action. Colorado Springs 
Mayor Robert Issac seemed to sum up those concerns/ 7 

I certainly didn't want to infer that ... we 
in any way want to interfere with economy and 
government at any level ... We just want to 
know through the proper procedures through the 
Air Force . . . that we will be able to predict 
the effect because ... a minor and short term 
effect ... can be major . . . when we have to 
balance our budget ... at the local level . . . 

we would like to know what the iapact is going 
to be and we think the work should be done and 
we should be provided with information that we 
don't know and that's how nany are going to 
aove out when. 

The Air Force replied that the iapact on the area, one known 
to be experiencing rapid growth, had been compared with the 
effect of like actions on other cossunities which had in the 
past experienced the sane situation, and the conclusion was 
the effect would be minimal. Since its planning was not coq- 
plete, the Air Force could not yet provide complete inforaa- 
tion on specific nuaber-s and types of jobs, which would he af - 
fectedi ■ General >Greenleaf. and. Mr. Janes F^Boatrightj Acting'.! 
Principal Deputy Assistant .Secretary of the"Air.<Force..for .'. : . ': 
Installations, expressed confidence that the AiK. Force' had"" . - 
complied with the National Environmental PolicyJAct;,.- : "rhey< ... ■'-, 
were reluctant to go into detail, however, ab6at.i3ethodology..- i 
for fear of prejudicing the Air Force's' caseyha'jawisuit-s > 
which had been filed just two days before the public meet- 7 ' 

On the broader issue of the reorganization's ef- 
fect on national defense, several forser senior air defense 
coamanders and key NORAD staff officers, all -retired, -ex- '.'■.■' 
b ,p.ressedrdis.5a.tisfa.ction»with •the Ji £ ense spending;,,. -' 
which had reduced air defense manpower and systems;, capability 
over the last decade, and questioned the wisdom : of' breaking 
up the organization and dispersing the specialexpertise 
which existed in ABCOM headquarters to other commands. Doubt 
was expressed sbout the continued effectiveness and timeli- 
ness of decision-making under such circumstances.^ 

. General Greenleaf expressed faith in the ability 1 
of the Air Force to be innovative in the face of adversity. 
He said: M 

I- have enough confidence in this Air Force of 
ours , . ' , that we have demonstrated over the 
years marvelous resiliency in changing our minds 
and are now doing things we thought unimportant 

The law suit is discussed later in this chapter. 

at the time or highly undesirable to do* tfe 
are running out of, if He have not already run 
out of, curacies if we continue to face re- 
duction in resources provided to the Air Force 
. . . , sad still do hopefully and effectively 
the missisns that have been assigned to the 
Air Force. 

He said that after careful study the ^ir Force had determined 
that it no longer needed a manageoent headquarters devoted to 
air defense satters. The gaining commands were expected to 
give close attention to those portions of the mission they ■? 
inherited. They would perform the day-to-day management 
tasks, but CINCKORAD's operational control remained invio- 
late. Air Force interest in the aerospace defense mission 
regained high— witness the new JSS system, AtfACS, and io- 
proveuents in missile warning radars-"-and the change would 
only eliminate headquarters overhead. Greenleaf said the 
Air Force was certain no weaknesses in its posture would re- 
sult, and the savings to be realized by the action were sub- 
stantial. 51 

Colorado Congressmen Ray Kogovsek and'Ken Kramer 
"■providediclosing'-'-conuaents'to the i public^Beetingr^Kogovsek~* "" iH 
expressed concern about the potential economic effect the 
reorganization would have on Colorado Springs ..but his larger 
concern was for 'the implications it had for the national de- 
fense posture. He personally felt the proposal was a mis- 
take, and he irtended to do all he could to get the issue 
examined in. upcoming House Armed Services Committee hearings, 
but he rated as slim his chances of changing things. Repre- * 
seutative Kramer added that although the general mood of the -"" 
Congress was to "cut back" on defense spending, it would have 
to be convinced that the change would not jeopardize national 
defense. Both saw the hearings on military construction and 
base closures coming in late April and early May as perhaps 
the only opportunity to alter the course of the reorganiza- 

The Colorado Springs town meeting anticipated what 
the experience of the next several months would prove: no 
local organized opposition to the closure of ADCOH existed. 
The meeting was the high point of Colorado Springs' interest 
in the closure. No other such 'gathering was held for the pur- 
pose of fact-finding or to register opposition. After a brief 
revival of interest during litigation brought by ADCOM en* 
ployees to stop the action, straight news coverage became in- 
frequent and there was no editorial consent. 

Colorado Congressmen were prepared ;o take the re- 
organization question to the floor of the Congress. It will 
be recalled that the ADCOM Tasic Force had been organized to 
assist then by providing information needed for interrogation 
of Air Force witnesses in upcoming Senate and House hearings. 
The Task Force examined the savings in dollars and manpower, 
the economic isapact on the local area, and effect on the 
national defense posture. ' Its report forwarded 24 April, 
was framed as a series of questions the answers to which 
Eight more fully illusinate Air Force intentions with regard 
to aerospace defense 2s a whole and ADCOM in particular,^ 
If any change were to he nade, it would happen during the leg- 
islative process -and.hinge on -vhether or not the Congress 
could be convinced -to withhold funds for the action. 

The ADC0M reorganization was brought to the atten- 
tion of the Congress "daring late April and early Hay 1979 in 
hearings before^the Subcommittee on Appropriations and the 
Military Construction and Stockpiles Subcommittee of the Sen- 
ate Araed Services Cosaittee. Representative Ken Kramer, 
freshaan Congressman fros the Fifth District, appearing as a 
witness before the House subcommittee on 25 April, voiced his 
conviction that sir defense would be hurt by the decision to 
, abolish ADCOM. ; . He said he had consequently introduced a 
(Resolution. of*Bisapproval^which*had "been Teferred'^o'*th*e' ,ft '- r;,wf ' 
House Armed Services* Coaaitteer Kramer said he had been 
criticised for his stand' because of his commitment to reduc- 
tion in federal spending and the fact that ADCOM was located 
in his district". Anticipating this reaction, he said he had 
studied the proposal carefully; and while his commitsent to a 
balanced budget remained strong, he gave defense first pri- 
ority in the use. o£ funds. Borrowing from the findings of 
the ADCOM Task Force," Kramer discussed the present state of 
the nation's air defense. posture, concerns about the change 
expressed by retired past commanders and staff officers of 
NORAD, the prospects for maintaining a credible posture fol- 
lowing the reorganization, the international implications of 
the action, the validity of the cost savings advertised by the 
Air Force, and the effect the dissolution of ADCOM would have 
on the upcoming Air Force decision regarding space organiza- 
tion. In summation, the Colorado Congressmen called the 
proposal "ill-designed, ill-timed, and {reflective o0 a 
misguided sense of priorities." At the conclusion of Kramer's 
statement the Subcommittee Chairman, Gunn McKay (D-Utah) 
thanked him, but noted that the committee did not have the 
authority to approve or disapprove base closures; the hear- 
ings were informative in nature and concerned with contruc- 

tion requirements arising out of military realignments. A 
list of questions submitted by Kramer were sent to the Air 
Force and the answers subsequently placed in the record of 
the hearings. The three members of the subcommittee present 
raised no questions. 54 

In addition to his efforts before the McKay Sub- 
committee, Representative Kramer also requested the General . 
Accounting Office examine the adequacy and accuracy of the 
cost savings the Air Force said would result from the reor- 
ganization. The results of the inquiry, presented to Kramer's 
staff in the middle of May and in a report of 25 June, found 
little to dispute in the Air Force figures for annual re- 3v- 
curring sayings (the Air Force said $12. 7M and the GAO esti- ' 
mated $12. 8M); but the GAO noted Air Force estimates of one- 
time costs ($4.9M) might be from $1,9M to $9.3M low, depending 
upon what -the Air Force finally did with regard to facility 
enhanceeents at Peterson AFB, Offutt AFB, and langley AFB. 
The GAO said the Air Foice projected spending only $500,000 
on minor construction, but facility costs could rise to as 
much as $J,.8M if the Air Force decided to improve facilities 
at Langley and Offutt AFBs to accommodate personnel incoming 
as a result of the reorganization ($2.4M), and build a new 
headquarters at Peterson for the remaining ADC0M personnel 
vacating .-the'-Chidlawauilding • ($7; 4M) . - The -GAO ^acknowledged* >-, 
that while its report was being prepared the Air Force had 
informed it that existing Peterson AFB facilities could ac- 
commodate remaining personnel, and the new headquarters build- 
ing would not be built.* In summary, the GAO review generally 
substantiated Air Force figures with regard to savings which 
would result from the reorganization, pointing out only that 
if the Air Force chose to proceed with the enhancements which, 
had been surveyed the' one-time cost would be much higher than 5 
projected. 55 

linlike Representative Kramer, Senator Gary Hart, 
in his inquiry during Senate hearings in early May, took no 
stand against' the disestablishment of ADCOM p_er se, but viewed 
it as the inevitable consequence of past piecemeal planning 
which raised doubts about the adequacy and character of future 
air and space defense forces. His view all along had been that 
the Air Force would have to prove that the reorganization was 

"~~ ""*" The issue of bedding down ABC on Peterson will I 
discussed later in this chapter. 

economically and militarily sound, and to this end he had 
supported the investigative efforts of the Colorado Springs 
Task Force; but he had been pessimistic that the decision 
could be reversed in the' 'Congress and had even urged realis- 
tic acceptance of the action. 56 "We can't reverse the de- 
cision just because we don't like it," he told a Colorado 
Springs audience in April, 57 Hart's questioning of Air 
Force officials during hearings of his Subcommittee on 
Military Construction and Stockpiles (Armed Services Com- 
mittee) on 1 and 16 May, was based on issues raised in the 
Task Force Report, and brought assurances that the savings 
were real and the change meant no fundamental shift in U.S. 
air defense- policy. 58 Still, the Senator believed a review 
1 of future air and space defense requirements was needed, and 
he had inserted in the FY-SO military construction bill a re- 
quest .for same.i' The BOD would report back to the Congress 
during "consideration of the 1981 budget in January 1980*59 
As for concerns = about the economic effect on Colorado Springs 
of losing ADCOM, Hart was hopeful it could be offset, at least 
in part, by the location there of a new facility associated 
with the Air Force's growing space mission. From his posi- 
tion as chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee 
he. worked to achieve that end. On 20 December the Air 
Force -announced^it intended Jocating^a SllO. million. Conso- . . ~. 
lid'ateU'Space^erations^Center'tCSOC) 10 miles"east of 
Colorado Springs. Construction would begin in 1982 and the 
facility was expected to become operational in the mid-1980s, 
ultimately, the : CSOC would employ about 1,800 military, 
civilian federal, and contractor personnel.* The promise of 
this new installation associated with the Air Force's bur- 
geoning space -mission seemed to sweep away whatever concerns 
still. lingered' about the economic consequences of the earlier * 
closure, and it t not the demise of ADCOM, became one of the 
top Ithnews stories of 1978 as compiled by the Colorado 
Springs Gazette Telegraph . 60 

The Air Force had anticipated correctly that oe- 
causeof the generally good economic climate of the Colorado 
Springs area there would be no public effort to block the 
dissolution of ADCOM. Lacking encouragement from their con- 
stituents, and sensitive to the prevailing mood of the Congress 
to reduce federal spending, members of the Colorado delegation 
could do little more than register their concern over the pos- 
sible effect the change would have on the national defense 

jee discussion of CSOC, pp 111-115. 

posture. Accomplishment of Air Force plans was delayed, 
however, by 10 ADCOM civilian employees, who, in April 1979, 
brought suit against the government charging the Air Force 
had failed to coaply completely with national environmental 

EIA and the law's Delay. (Bj The National Environ- 
mental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 s stipulated that any govern- 
ment agency proposing a major action which would significant- 
ly affect the quality of the human environment was required 
to prepare a detailed statement of the environmental impact 
expected to result from the proposed action. The Defense 
Department regulation intended as a guide to action in such -5 
matters stated that "in. malting a judgment in a particular ' 
case. -it will be necessary for the proponent of the action 
to a|gess the expected environmental effects of the action 
in conjunction with the intent of . . . NEPA . . .", and it 
directed that a decision not be made until the environmental 
consequences had been assessed. Should the investigation 
show the action would have an environmental effect on a large 
scale "or have a serious environmental effect in a more re- 
stricted geographical area . . . ", then it was to be con- 
sidered a major action affecting the quality of the human 
environment and would require preparation of a comprehensive 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 6 ^ ^^^s^, ,„-*™j-w*-"- 

Iii its efforts to comply with NEPA, Headquarters 
USAF assiped the task of assessing the environmental impact 
of the ADCOM. reorganization to the USAF Engineering Services 
Center, Tyndall AFE, Florida. Its analysis, published in 
April 1978, focused on Colorado Springs (including El Paso 
and Teller counties), which would lose 1,649 military and ' - . 
civilian service authorizations, and Tyndall AFE, Florida, "£' 
which would gain 215. Other increases--to Offutt AFB, 
• Nebraska (190); Langley AFB, Virginia (166); and Scott AFB, 
Illinois (26)--were expected to have so little human and 
natural environmental impact that it was decided a full exam- 
ination was not required. The Environmental Impact Assessment 
(EIA) anticipated the following adverse environmental effects 
in the Colorado Springs area from the reorganization :° z 

*~ Pub L. 91-190, Jan, 1, 1979, 83 Stat. 852, clas- 
sified to section 4321 et s^. of Title 42, The Public Health 
and Welfare. 

The proposed action would affect 8,583 persons 
(military, civilian, and their dependents), 
most of whom would move from the Colorado 
Springs Standard Metropolitan Statistical 
Area (SMSA).* This was about 2.7 percent 
of the total SMSA population, estimated at 

Unemployment in the Colorado Springs SMSA 
would increase by 1.6 percent, from an 
average of 5.7 percent (period Oct 76- 
Sep 77) to 7.3 percent. 

There would be a loss in personal income in 
the Colorado Springs SMSA of about $55 

4. El Paso County revenues could decrease by 
an estimated $1.7 million. 

5. Air Force procurement would probably be 
reduced by about $1 million, 

6. The housing vacancy rate would rise from 
about 5 percent to 7.7 percent, at least 
in the short term. 

7. About 1,540 students would leave local schools* 
resulting in a reduction in federal funding of 
about 8,4 percent (PL 81-874 funds). 

Savings to the Air Force from the action would be $14.8 
million in the first year of implementation ($17.6 million 
minus $2.8 million one-time costs for transferring personnel), 
and $17,6 million each year thereafter. Most of it repre* 
sented personnel costs, ^ 

™' The SMSA included the city of specified population 
which constituted the central city and the county or counties 
in which it was located. The SMSA also included contiguous 
counties when the economic and social relationships between 
the central and contiguous counties met specified critera of 
metropolitan character and integration. 

After reviewing the assessment, the Chairman of 
the USAF Environmental Protection Committee concluded "... 
this proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment and it is not likely to be 
highly controversial with regard to its environmental im- 
pacts. "&4 He determined that the provisions of the MEPA had 
been satisfied and a formal EIS was not required. 65 Although 
the Air Force subsequently made changes in the number of peo- 
ple to be moved from the Colorado Springs area (a reduction 
of about 300) and in the number to be located at each gaining 
base (those originally intended for Tyndall AFB would be lo- 
cated at langley AFB), they were not believed to be of suf- 
ficient consequence to alter the conclusion that no further 
examination of the environmental consequences of the action 
was required. && In summary, the Air Force concluded that 
since the Colorado Springs area economy was dynamic in its 
growth, the irapact of the reorganization would be minimal in 
its effect and short-lived in duration. 

In February 1979 ADCOM advised USAF that a recent 
review of the assessment was sufficient "... to raise 
doubts as to whether the document could stand the test of 
detailed public scrutiny." ADCOM anticipated such an ex- 
amination when the reorganization finally became public, and 
said it was not in a position to defend the environmental 
aspects of the decision.^ 7 Air Force was willing to assume 
that burden, and replied that although "... the nature of 
the proposed action ..." forbid involving ADCOM personnel 
in the preparation of the assessment, "The current document 
is the final product of " . . . /anj extensive review and 
coordination process at Hq USAF, ..." and would stand up 
under scrutiny.^ A month later the Air Force's decision 
was challenged in a court of law. 

The inadequacies of the EIA were the basis for a 
class action suit ( Willett et alv. Brown et__al ) brought by 
10 ADCOM civilian employees "and filed" in t¥e" District Court 
of Colorado in Denver or 18 April 1979.* The suit held that 

*"" Plaintiffs were Richard N. Willett, Rosella M. 
Tellers, Louis R. Taylor, Linda C. MacCiendon, Owen A. Moore, 
Archie H. Alexander, James E.Thsbert, Edward C. Haning, 
BaTry A. Hinton, and Phillip Montoya. As was customary in 
such cases, named as defendants were Secretary of Defense 
Harold Brown, Secretary of the Air Force John Stetson, and 
Air Force Chief of Staff General lew Allen- 

in its planning the Air Force had failed to comply complete- 
ly with provisions of the NEPA. In summary, the plaintiffs 
claimed: (1) The Air Force had violated 10 United States 
Code, Section 2687 by not making prior public announcement 
that ACCOM was a candidate for closure, (2) It had substan- 
tially departed front general policies and procedures of the 
NEPA in the proposed action, (3) It had violated DOD and 
USAF regulations pertaining to the NEPA, and (4) It had 
failed to conduct the environmental and technological assess- 
ment necessary for preparation of an adequate and detailed 
environmental impact statement, and had refused to prepare 
such a statement. The plaintiffs asked for an injunction to 
freeze all reorganisation actions until the government had 
complied with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687 and 
other applicable statutes and regulations, 69 Richard Hanes, 
lawyer for the defendants,* called the' suit a "delaying 
tactic" to force the government to prepare a lengthy EIS. 
Time would be gained for Colorado members of Congress to 
explore the issue more fully in committee hearings. If 
enough support were forthcoming, perhaps the defense appro- 
priations bill could be written to forbid use of funds to 
disestablish ADCOM. 70 The government responded to the suit 
by denying most of the allegations, calling some of the 
plaintiffs' references to statutes incomplete and inaccurate 
and others conclusions of law a response to which was unnec* 
essary. It asked that the suit be dismissed. 71 

On 23 May, six days before the. sixty day mori- 
torium on Air Force actions was to expire; U.S. District Judge 
Sherman G. Finesilver hear arguments by both sides. He then 
denied the Air Force': motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit 
and its request for summary judgment, and ruled in favor of 
the plaintiffs by granting a temporary injunction against the 
Air Force proceeding with any irrevocable action in conjunc- 
tion with the reorganization. 

* — The Colorado Springs firm of Spurgei 
Howbert represented the plaintiffs. 

Judge Finesilver's 14-page summation examined the 
defendant's argument that since its assessment had found no 
adverse effects on the natural enviionraent in the Colorado 
Springs area, and only short-lived socio-economic effects, 
and since the action was not a major one affecting the quality 
of the human environment as defined in DOD regulations, it 
was not necessary to prepare a lengthy EIS. The court held 
the Air Force's contention that an EIS was not necessary was 
not a reasonable one. The judge highlighted two deficiencies 
in the assessment process which led to that opinion. First, 
the supplemental assessment conducted by Mr. Thomas Lord, 
Chief of Environmental Planning Division, Hq TAC, pursuant to 
a change in Air Force plans and its intention to send some 
400 personnel to Langley AFB, Virginia instead of Tyndall AFB, 
Florida, had been oral and informal. Judge Finesilver ruled 
this was not a reasonable exercise of discretion in a formal 
assessment. Secondly, the assessment did not address the ef- 
fect on the environment of the construction of the building 
which the Air Force said would be required to house about 600 
personnel sent to Peterson AFB upon closure of the Chidlaw 
Building. This also was not a reasonable exercise of dis- 
cretion, according to Judge Finesilver. The judge also dis- 
agreed with the Air Force's emphasis in its testimony on 
natural or biophysical effects at the expense of socio- 
economic ones, saying the latter concerns were so "entwined" 
with natural environmental ones as to give them considerable 
weight. Neither could he agree with the view expressed by 
the Air Force that the NEPA "... is for the enlightenment 
of the decision-maters" (Finesilver's words). He said the 
general public [to include the plaintiffs) was entitled to 
the most complete information possible, and, according to the 
"udge, this might best be obtained by "a formal and complete 
written assessment . , . "* The judge said that for a pre- 
iminary injunction to be ruled the plaintiffs merely needed 
o show reasonable probability that they would ultimately 
prevail, and they had done so. In issuing his temporary in- 
"unction the judge determined "... the threatened harm to 
plaintiffs far outweighs the actual harm which will accrue 
to defendants i : the injunction is granted." He also denied 

* As for broad public policy considerations behind 
NEPA, the judge said many biophysical, natural, and human 
components must be examined and alternatives and their effect 
considered, and this required broad rather than narrow com- 
pliance with the Act's tenants, and compliance with the spirit 
of the Act "... even when possibly not technically re- 
quired, ..." 

the defendant's claim that the plaintiffs' suit should be 
dismissed since closure cf a military facility was riot 
involved (as defined in 10 U.S.C. S 2687). He called such 
arguments "spurious," since the Chidlaw Building was clearly 
military in purpose and under the control and direction of 
the Department of Defense. 72 At this late May hearing a 
trial date was set for 22 June, but then subsequently post- 
poned indefinitely at the Air Force's request to give it 
ample time to respond to questions raised by the court. A 
status conference would be held in Judge Finsilver's court 
18 July, and a new trial date set then. 73 

On 18 July the Air Force again motioned the court 
either to dismiss the case or to issue a summary judgment 
based on a revised environmental assessment which it presented 
at that time. The Air force stated if had made every effort 
to be responsive to Judge finesilver's concerns expressed in 
the 23 May Memorandum of Opinion. The judge had raised doubts 
about the documentation and completeness of the environmental 
assessment, so the Air Force had prepared a new, more compre- 
hensive, one. The earlier assessment had not addressed the 
impact of the Air Force's planned new building for headquar- 
ters personnel at Peterson AFB, to which the Air Force pre- 
sented an affidavit that it did not intend to build such a 
facility. To the court's concern about "... emphasis 
placed by defendants on the effects on the natural or bio- 
physical environment at the expense of the socio-economic en- 
vironment," the Air Force referred to its .new assessment which 
had corrected that imbalance. In answer to the court's ruling 
that NEPA should be considered for the enlightenment of the 
general public as well as the decision-makers, the Air Force 
replied the assessment -would be made available to those af- 
fected by the ADCOM reorganization and a wide-range of other 
interested parties. Those actions taken, the Air Force 
thought' the original issues raised by the plaintiffs were now 
"moot," and, as mentioned above, it uTged dismissal of the 
plaintiff's action.. Judge Finesilver thereupon gave the 
plaintiffs until 1 August to respond to the Air Force's mo- 
tion. The government would then have about a week to rebut. 4 . 

The plaintiffs replied their complaint was not now 
moot just because the Air Force had amended its EIA, since 
"... it /I he complaintj is not limited to only the initial 
EIA but addressed the totality of the actions taken by the 

Defendants as showing their noncompliance with ths statutory 
requirements; and the Amended EIA is not conclusive as a mat- 
ter of law on all issues of the Plaintiffs' complaint; and 
there still remain substantial material issues of fact which 
require a trial or. the merits ,"75 The plaintiffs claimed that 
the motion to dismiss was not appropriate. They pleaded the 
motion for Summary Judgment was to determine whether or not 
there vas any genuine issue as to material facts; and the 
court was not permitted to decide any issues of facts upon a 
motion for Summary Judgment, but must solely determine whether 
there was an issue of fact to be tried. Just because the de- 
fendants addressed all of the issues in the amended EIA mi 
not a test of whether or not Summary Judgment should be grant- 
ed. To i'ne defendant's claim that the amended EIA had re- 
medied the inadequacies of the original assessment, and that 
no material issue of fact remained to be determined, the 
plaintiffs replied there was a different conclusion to be 
drawn and that such issues must be decided at trial and not 
upon a motion for judgment. The plaintiffs maintained that 
all they were required to do under a Motion for Summary Judg- 
ment was to show there was material issues of fact which re- 
quired a trial. The balance of their brief examined the 
factual issues remaining to be decided: sewage problems, 
school overcrowding, and noise pollution at Lang ley ArB; 
failure of the amended EIA to consider fully mitigation of 
known adverse environmental effects of the reorganization; 
erroneous information contained in the amended El A on the 
impact of the reduction of the Colorado Springs school sys- 
tem; and the questionable accuracy of the cost estimates of 
altering Peterson AFE to accommodate Aerospace Defense Center 
personnel. The plaintiffs concluded denial of defendant's 
Motion cf Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment was approp- 

Despite these arguments, Air Force attorneys re- 
mained convinced the amended assessment answered the plain- 
tiffs brief. The assessment examined the plaintiffs' argu- 
ments one by one and found no material issues of fact to 
prevent the court from a judgment^in favor of the defend- 
ants. The government concluded:?? 

There are no issues of material fact remaining, 
only differences of opinions. The sole issue 
remaining is to determine whether the Air Force 
was reasonable in arriving at its negative 
determination. It has been shown by the facts 
that have been un:ontraverted by the plaintiffs 
that the determination was based upon a thorough 

analysis indepth factual research, and clear 
reasoning. The amended environmental impact 
assessment did render plaintiffs' complaint moot 
and did address all deficiencies and supplied 
the necessary decision making documents to enable 
this Court to adjudge the reasonableness of the 
negative determination. Therefore, it is re- 
quested motion to dismiss or in the alternative 
for Summary Judgment be granted. 

Judge Finesilver set 24 August as the trial date to 
hear arguments on the case. 78 As that date neared, however, 
there were reports the plaintiffs were finding it increasing- 
ly difficult to pay their legal fees. On 20 August one of 
their spokesmen denied the suit would be dropped, 79 but next 
day came an announcement that the parties had filed a joint 
motion for dismissal of the suit, and that Judge Finesilver 
had signed it, thereby lifting the preliminary injunction 
issued 23 May. 80 A trial on the merits- of the case never 
occurred because the plaintiffs were already about $15,000 
in debt and could not raise the additional funds needed." 1 

The suit h'illctt v. Brown delayed Air Force imple- 
mentation of the reorganization 1 for about three months {25 
May until 21 August). Personnel transfers which normally 
would have taken place during the traditional summer sieving 
season were delayed by the injunction, and morale problems, 
if not personal hardship, resulted. The delay also permitted 
soje highly skilled and scarce personnel resources intended 
for SAC. TAC, and the new Aerospace Defense Center to he 
lost to other assignments. It was perhaps natural that the 
frustration of this hiatus, coming on .top of the moral drain- 
ing experience of two years of reorganization study, caused 
some to focus blame on the 10 civilians who brought the suit. 
But the Air Force should bear a share of that responsibility. 
In assessing the environmental aspects of the proposed action, 
it had available for reference the experience of past reor- 
ganizations and base closures (for example, the long-delayed 
move of AFCS from Richards-Gebaur AFB to Scott AFB), events 
which although different in many particulars from the action 
contemplated, nevertheless collectively urged caution and a 
conservative approach to meeting the requirements of nation* 
al environmental policy. ADCOM might have performed ?. use- 
ful role, perhaps as the "devil's advocate," in constructing 
the strongest possible assessment. As it turned out, ths 
command was not given an opportunity to help prepare the 
document, but individuals employed there were encouraged by 
the weaknesses they found in' it to challenge the action in 

court. The court agreed the Air Force assessment was incom- 
plete enough to justify postponement of the reorganization, 
but a trial test never came because the plaintiffs dropped 
their suit when they could no longer pay their legal fees. 
Neither side gained much satisfaction from this brief legal 
excursion. The plaintiffs incurred considerable debt but de- 
layed the reorganization only three months. The injunction's 
delay did not help Colorado Congressmen in their efforts to 
explore the consequences of the closure of ADCOM in FY-80 
budget hearings, since the issue received only superficial ex» 
amination there, and sll that was going to be said on the set- 
ter had been said by early May. The Air Force had to expend 
additional effort to rewrite its assessment, and the effect 
of delays in personnel transfers and organizational changes 
has been mentioned. The prevailing opinion of Headquarters 
ADCOM' s military and civilian persoanel regarding the law 
suit, whether they sympathised with the action or not, seemed 
to be that it could not cancel out the reorganization, only 
postpone it. During the injunction period they became in- 
creasingly anxious for an end to the stalemate so that they 
could make the necessary adjustments in their lives and get 
on with the future. Few greeted Kith disappointment the USAF 
announcement en 25 August that on I September the ADCOM 
reorganization would begin. 32 

Dismantlement of the Major Mr^mandjBQCW . (U) Upon 

public announcement or the r^o^ganuEtlchT 'ITF'Force planning 
concentrated on four principal actions necessary to accomplish 
the change: (1) transfer to TAC, AFCS-, and SAC parts of 
ADCQM's isission, personnel resources, systems, units, and bases; 

(2) establishment of a new management headquarters called Aero- 
space Defense Center from residual ADCOM headquarters personnel; 

(3) disestablishment of the msjor air command ADCOM; and (4) 
vacating the Chidiaw Building and movement of the new ADC 
headquarters to Peterson AFB. 

The first action was to transiei the larger part of 
ADCCM's manpower and units to TAC and AFCS, TAC would acquire 
16.657 manpower spaces, 1G aajor units, and four bases. The 
Communications Sen-ice would gain 1,696 spaces, two units, and 
the communications-electronics functions of many other former 
ADCOM units the greater part of which would $o to TAC and SAC. 53 
The TAC DCS Plans wrote the ADCOM Vice Commander in early May 
that General Creech (the TAC commander) wished to accomplish 

the change in a "smooth, orderly, and efficient" way. Con- 
sequently, TAC expected to make no major changes in the 
manner in which business was being done, and would try to 
minimize any personal hardship which sight arise as a result 
of the reorganization. TAC's plan for assuming its new re- 
sponsibilities included establishing a small cadre of per- 
sonnel in Colorado Springs in June. It would be headed by 
Major General John L. Piotrowski, then commander of the S52d 
Airborne Warning and Control Wing, Tinker AFB. He would as- 
sise the title of TAC Deputy Comoander for Air Defense (ADTAC). 
Between October 1979 and June 1980 TAC would gradually trans- 
ition responsibility for the air defense jaission froE Colorado 
Springs to Langley bv incremental Hovement of personnel and 
their integration into the TAC staff. s " ADCOM welcoiaed this 
scans of transitioning responsibility for the atmospheric 
defense mission, 8 $ but it had trcuble with the split dates 
of the transfer. In late May General Hill attempted to get 
TAC and AFCS to agree to postpone their parts of the change- 
over until I October, the date of the SAC transfer. He 
reasoned that since personnel shortages existed in certain 
critical AFSCs, if the quantity of personnel requested by 
TAC and AFCS were transferred on I July, not enough would be 
left over to support SAC'S requirements on 1 October and the 
continuing needs of CINCN05AD. If all transfer? took place 
1 October, a more orderly transition tvould be possible, and 
the Military Personnel Center would have more tine to real- 
locate personnel from its worldwide pool.^ TAC answered 
it saw no reason to delay things since personnel allocations 
could be managed. It was concerned that any later date would 
drag out the transfer and result in more personnel turbulence. ^ 
AFCS noted the referenced personnel problems had little ef- 
fect on its plans, and said it could support either date. $3 
Since ADCOM found itself unsupported on the change of dates, 
1 July remained a valid planning date into early June. An 
advance party of TAC personnel arrived at ADCOM on 4 June to 
set up the ADTAC office, but it had to depart again late in 
the month when court delays extended the moritorium on actions 
into July. 89 

In late July, reorganiiation 3ction officers met 
with Hq USAF planners in the Pentagon to examine a range of 
reorganization issues. New milestones agreed upon called 
for assets going to TAC and AFCS to be transferred on 

26 Air Division, less the 
2 Coramuni cat ions Sq 
5 Defense Space Communications Sq 
7 Missile Warning Sq 

46 Flying Training Sq Peterson AFB, CO 

42S Munitions Support Sq Colorado Springs, ZO 


Duluth IAP, ffii 

Kingsiey Field, OR 

Hancock Field, XY 

Tyndsll AFB, FL 

The Air Force's residual presence at Otis AFB, MA 

Those units not transferred to TAG ("less the" etc. above} 
were missile warning and space surveillance organisations 
destined for assignment to SAC. Pending that action, they 
were, on 1 October, assigned tesoorarily to Headquarters 

Also on 1 October, the Air Force CoBmuni cat ions 
Service gained two ADCOM units, the 4? COifoiiuai cat ions Squad: 
ron and the 4754 Radar Evaluation Squadron (546 manpower 
spaces}. 5 ^ 1 

SAC also began its phased acquisition of ADCOM 
assets on 1 October by assuming command of Peterson AFB and 
the following units: Hq 46 Aerospace Defense Sq (less the 46 
Flying Training Sq, the 504 Air Force Band, and the 47 Com* 
rcuniutions Sq), the 4602 Computer Services Sq, and the 4614 
Contracting Sq.97 In total, SAC was slated to receive 3, $65 
manpower spaces, IS major missile warning and space surveil- 
lance units, and, it addition to Peterson, two bases in 
Greenland (Thule and Sondrestrom.}^ 

Planning for the transfer of resource management 
functions for ADCOM missile warning and space surveillance 
units to SAC had called for a gradual acceptance of responsi- 
bility by that coraiaand beyond the first quarter of FY-80, as 
personnel with the required skills were acquired. SAC ac- 
knowledged in early October, however, that its new Director- 
ate of Space and Missile Warning Systems (SX), DCS/Operations, 
would be slow in building up because of shortages in critical 
AFSCs related to space. Also, having gained what it called 
"... some real world visibility into the transition prob- 
lem." SAC agreed that ADCOM would no longer have sufficient 
personnel beyond 1 January 1980 to support a phased transi- 
tion or SAC gained assets. SAC therefore proposed a com- 
plete transfer of regaining ADCOM aanagement responsibilities 
on 1 December (with the exception of the 10th Aerospace Defense 
Squadron which it would take over on 1 November). Since SAC/ 
SX would not be able to manage those responsibilities by that 
tiise, the liaison office in Colorado Springs would assume 
that function in the interim, being augmented by fonaer ADCOM 
personnel eventually destined for assignment to Offutt and 
SX." ADCOM agreed to the SAC proposal. 1M 

v On 1 December the following units were reassigned 

2 Cona Squadron 

5 Defense Space Comm Sq 

6 Missile Warning Sq 

7 Missile Warning Sq 

'12 Missile Warning Group 

13 Missile Naming Sq 

14 Missile Warning Sq 
16 Surveillance Sq 

20 Missile Warning Sq 
4 684 Air Base Grouo 

Buckley AGB, CO 
Koomera ASM, Australia 
Otis AFB, MA 
Beale AFB, CA 
Thule AFB, Greenland 
Clear MB 1 , Alaska 
MacDill AFB, FL 
Shemya AFB, Alaska 
Eglin AFB, FL 
Sondrestrom AB, Greenland 

Upon transfer of responsibility for the day-to- 
day management of aerospace defense systems and the greater 
part of its units and personnel, ADCOM for all practical 
purposes ceased to function as a major comtaand, although it 
continued to exist officially throughout the rest of 1979. 

Formation of Aerospace Defen s e Center , 
Although the "Greenbook" proposal" of"" January 1978 determined 
a major command management headquarters was no longer nec- 
essary to support the aerospace defense mission, it did 
recoiutnertd a small staff of about 300 be retained in Colorado 
Springs to "... be the administrative and resource man- 
agement organization for organizing, training, and equipping 
Air Force personnel supporting K0RAD/ADC0J!/Specifiec7 and 
NCOC functions ..." Since, as the study emphasized, it 
was critical "... to preserve the authority and influence 
. of CINCNGRAD in the performance of his mission, to assure he 
is provided adequate, trained forces, and to maintain a 
responsive command and control structure downwards for the 
forces and upwards to the Canadian and U.S. military and 
political authorities, "101 it seeded the new raanagesent 
element would inherit many of the responsibilities of the 
old major command. Upon close examination of the proposal, 
however, the ADCOM staff was not completely satisfied CINC- 
NORAD's authority and influence in joint and service matters 
would be preserved.^- The JCS saw some "ambiguities" in 
the study's distinctions between what would continue to be 
CINCSORAD responsibilities and what role CINCSAC would play 
with regard to command and management of space and missile' 
warning resources. SAC was to get technical management 
of Automatic Data Processing resources, but N'ORAD would main- 
tain configuration management control. The JCS asked: 
"How, for example, will sensor management be separated from 
ADP management? Within ADP, how will hardware and software 
be separated? Or, within software, how will technical man- 
agement be separated from configuration management?"^' 
These questions and other considerations presuaded the com- 
mands concerned to meet in Colorado Springs in early 1978 
to review their plans for implementing the reorganization. 10- ' 
Subsequently, General Hill reported to the JCS that he was 
satisfied he could do the job:^ 

The proposed reorganisation plan does not 
diminish my combined/specified operational com- 
mand authority as CINCNQRAD/CINCAD . . , 

• . . There is no change to my current 
authority and responsibilities for the NCOC, 
its operational centers and associated ADP 
hardware and software. At the sensor sites, 
NORAD/ADCOM would maintain configuration manage- 
ment over the operational software for the 
sensor systems. Technical management, ["J e.g., 
implementation of approved software changes and 
day-to-day maintenance of sensor software and 
hardware, would be provided by site personnel 
under the command of SAC. The NORAD/ADCOM 
staff would retain the management structure ex* 
pertise and approval authority for changes to 
software programs and associated hardware speci- 
fications relating to sensor systems supporting 
the CISCNORAD/CINCAD operational mission. Opera* 
tional control and tasking over all elements of 
field sensors needed to support the space sur- 
veillance and missile warning/attack assessment 
missions win continue to be exercised through 
the MCOC operational centers which remain under 
ay full control. This retains the existing 
command and control structure through which I 
currently carry out my assigned combined and 
specified command responsibilities. This arrange- 
ment is essentially unchanged from the manner in 
which end-tc-end operational control of ADP 
hardware and software is currently managed. 

In its presentations of the reorganization 
plan to the JCS and Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 
Air Force emphasized the action represented only a change in 
the way the Air Force would manage day-to-day the resources 
it contributed to the aerospace defense mission. CINCN'ORAD's 

* r " '- Defined as the user stating requirements, evalu- 
ation test plans and results, and maintaining overall cog- 
nizance of configuration control actions to include software 
documentation standards. 

authority, influence, and control would be preserved. 
In late November 1978, when Air Staff representatives and 
those of the commands concerned met to re-examine the re* 
organization study, and to begin planning to implement its 
proposals, program advocacy was described as resolved as 
the result of a general officer agreement. Yet, within 
the month, differences which arose between the SAC and 
ADCOM staffs over future management of ADP software gave 
ample evidence it had not been. 106 At the Second Combined 
Air Defense Reorganization Planning Conference held in ear- 
ly January 1979, the two commands remained at odds over 
advocacy. ADCOM found unacceptable the wording of a SAC 
draft letter of agreement which defined configuration 
management and technical management, and would not agree 
to transfer to SAC certain ADCOM Plans and Operations 
functions. ^7 

v . . . , As work began in February 1979 on pro- 
gramming clans to implement the reorganization, the future 
role CIN'CN'ORAD/CIN'CAD/COM AFENA would play in stating re- 
quirements and otherwise advocating his mission needs to 
Hq USAF remained the major issue between ADCOM and SAC and 
TAC. General Hill orovided the following as policy for a 
Flans stafi paper on the subject: "... AFENA (CINC- 
NORAD/CINCAD) is primary (possibly even sole) advocate* 
Requirements, configuration control (end-to-end), inspec- 
tion and evaluation, training standards, etc remain. SAC 
and TAC are supporting and supporting only, "^8 The 
CIN'CNORAD wrote General Allen that it seemed the relation- 
ships between the future resource managers- of aerospace 
systems and the operator of those systems 'were still not 
well understood. He referred to a recent attempt to ex- 
plain the workings of the post-reorganization NORAB/CIN'CAD/ 
AFENA to the Canadians,* as one producing "enduring con- 
fusion." The e.xolanation therein of future parallel svstems 
advocacy, wherein SAC, TAC AFCS and ADC would share ad- 
vocacy responsibility but CINCN'ORAD would continue to be 
the principal advocate for strategic aerospace defense 
requirements, seemed ambiguous at best. General Hill re- 

■ * L General Hill was referring to a State Depart- 
ment message to the American Embassy, Ottawa, 20/2143Z Dec 
78 (Doc "1, Chap I, Hist of ADCOM, 1977-78). 

marked, "... we apparently are having to create awkward, 
poorly understood mechanisms and relationships ..." to 
make the reorganization work. Pessimistically, he predicted 
this uncertainty could result in the SAC and TAC staffs dom- 
inating the relatively small AFENA staff and eventually 
rendering it ineffective. The consequence would be the 
eventual disestablishment of HOHAfl.109 

DCS/Plans direction to the staff for use in pre- 
paring the programming plan reflected CINCNORAD's strong be- 
lief that his headquarters should be the focal point for the 
Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) actions 
(e.g., development of doctrine and concepts, mission area 
analysis, Program Objective Memorandum (POM) actions, build* 
ing force documents, and long range planning) as they con- 
cerned the strategic defense area. 1 }' Consequently, the 
March 1979 draft of ADCOM PPlan 79-'l contained a detailed «' 
discussion of CINCNORAD's future advocacy responsibilities 
and interaction with those commands responsible for resource 
management. 111 Since in some particulars this policy con- 
flicted with SAC and TAC perceptions as to what their future 
responsibilities would be, coordination of PPlans was delayed. 
SAC said its main disagreement with the ADCOM plan was that 
although SAC would be assigned the resources and major com- 
mand responsibility for them, the plan indicated AFENA would 
retain them. This would mean a duplication, it said, of 
both management functions and personnel requirements. 11 ^ 
ADCOM replied- that since CINCNORAD/CINCAD would continue to 
have operational responsibility for aerospace defense forces 
in the post reorganization period, AFENA would develop re- 
quirements and work with SAC, TAC, and AFCS to expand upon 
and complete such documents as Statements of Operational 
Need (S0N1 and Required Operational Capability Statements 
(R0CS). 11j Headquarters ilSAF took note of these conflicts 
and advised that the 25 series regulations (Organization 
and Mission - Field) and memorandums of agreement, and not 
the Programming Plans, were the proper places to resolve 
them. Specifically, "Mission directives should clearly 
define PPBS /Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System/ 
and operational requirements advocacy responsibilities and 
the inter-command relationships necessary to carry out 
these responsibilities. " llJ ! 

Advocacy emerged as a "key consideration" 
in a zero-based review directed by the Secretary of the Air 
Force in February 1979 to verify the validity of the reor- 
ganization's objectives. The Air Staff examined the division 
of responsibilities for PPBS and the advocacy for future sys- 
tems requirements and concluded no change would be made in 
CINCNORAD/ClNCAD's access for advocacy purposes. Also, as 
the commander of the Air Force element in Colorado Springs, 
CINCNGRAD/CINCAD would continue to advocate USAF air defense 
and surveillance/warning operational doctrine and requirements 
to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff. 
Furthermore: "This proposed headquarters element would re- 
main responsible for Air Force planning, programming and bud- 
geting actions affecting USAF resources dedicated to CINC- 
NORAD/CINCAD in the Colorado Springs area and for control 
over space surveillance/missile warning AQP configuration 
management." SAC, TAC, and AFCS would work closely with the 
element "... to provide parallel systems advocacy through 
PPBS actions associated with their specific resource manage- 
ment responsibilities. "1^ 

. The zero-based review did not, however, 
quiet disagreement over AFEMA's role in future dealings with 
the Air Staff on matters of mission area analysis, acquisi- 
tion, and general PPSS activities. ADCOM learned in late 
March that SAC and TAC had advised the Air Staff that ADCOM 1 s 
advocacy responsibilities, as outlined in its PPlan and its 
draft of the 20-4 regulation (headquarters organization and 
responsibilities) were overstated and contrary to Greenbook 
guidance, H6 Anxious that his position be clear, General 
Hill wrote General Allen about this problem", which he had 
thought previously resolved, saying that although future 
strategic defense matters would require continuing and close 
coordination between the operator and systems managers, 
AFENA should be the one primary focal point for future 
systems advocacy to the Air Staff.H? The SAC commander, 
General Ellis, also wrote General Allen at this time, but 
with a different view. He saw a much more limited role for 
the AFEN'A staff than the one envisioned by General Hill, 
While he agreed that' a "... clear definition of this di- 
vision of responsibilities /Between AFENA and SAC, TAC, and 
AFCSJ was fundamental to smooth and efficient reorganiza- 
tion," and toward that end it was important to note that 
C I NC AD as a specified commander had the obligation to advo- 
cate his requirements through the JCS to the SecDef, the 
CINCSAC also observed that since the major command ADCOM was 
to be disestablished it became the responsibility of SAC, 

TAG, and AFCS commanders to process CIMCAD requirements 
through Air Force channels. Such an arrangement would, ac- 
cording to General Ellis, parallel the USAFE/PACAF/TAC re- 
lationship wherein TAC represented the theater combat com- 
mands in program advocacy within the Air Staff, * 18 NORAD 
felt compelled to comment to USAF on the Ellis letter in 
order " .' . . to add clarity to the determination of post- 
reorganization responsibilities . . ." The Vice Commander 
in Chief, Major General Warren C. Moore, noted that speci- 
fied commanders had been successful in the past because they- 
had been at the same time major air commanders and thus re- 
source managers. They had therefore been able to promote 
their programs to Headquarters USAF, the prime mover in the 
allocation of resources. (The JCS had little impact on this 
process, and traditionally specified CINCs had preferred to 
work through service channels.} He said there was no pre- 
cedent for believing it was desirable to have a resource 
manager who was not at the same time the specified commander 
process the specified commander's requirements through the 
Air Staff. Although CINCAD would cease to be a major air 
commander after the reorganization, he would command a ser- 
vice headquarters element; and it was his belief that while 
the relationship between the force suppliers (SAC and TAC) 
and the force employer (ADCOM-specified) should be a "close 
and interdependent partnership," responsibility to determine 
and advocate operational requirements to the service head- 
auarters should be delegated to the headquarters element sup- 
porting CINCAD. H5 

General Allen responded to these concerns by say- 
ing the Air Staff had been instructed to examine all aspects 
of the assignment of responsibilities for air defense and 
surveillance/warning resources, including the important ques- 
tion of advocacy, and an intercommand meeting would be held 
later "... to insure full agreement and understanding re- 
garding organizational responsibilities. "120 That review 
was not completed until early June, however, and previous 
decisions regarding overall division of responsibilities 
were confirmed. The Vice Chief of Staff provided additional 
guidance on 9 1 July: 121 

a. Aerospace Defense Center (ADC) (formerly 

AFENA) , will be an Air Force unit with its commander 

(COMADC) reporting directly to CSAF. The ADC 

mission will be to provide Air Force staff support 

to NORAD/AECOM and to serve as the coordinating 
authority for integrating Air Force activities in 
the strategic aerospace defense mission area. 

b. The Air Force is fully committed to support 
the CINCAD/CINCNORAD mission. In this context, we 
must insure that the operational commander continues 
to have influence in resource allocation decisions. 
This can be done by establishing a very close rela- 
tionship between CINCAD/COMADC and each of the 
supporting commands (TAC, SAC, and AFCS). This will 
require that TAC, SAC, and AFCS headquarters activity 
regarding strategic defense be closely linked with 
that of ADCOM/ADC. Although there will be no changes 
to the current operational chain of command for real- 
time actions, we see TAC, SAC, and AFCS headquarters 
being advised of CINCAD operational actions which 
affect subordinate units in a way that facilitates 
accomplishment of the operational mission. Being so 
informed will allow the commanders of TAC, SAC, and 
AFCS to provide enhanced support. 

c. Provisions must be written into the 20/23 
AF regulations to insure that CINCAD/COMADC can ini- 
tiate requirements statements, and recommend priori- 
ties for programs for use by the commanders of SAC, 
TAC, and AFCS as the bases for resource management 
actions in the PPBS /Planning, Programming, and 
Budgeting System/ and in development and acquisition 
of new systems. Establishing formal authority for 
CINCAD/COMADC to review PPBS actions proposed by SAC, 
TAC, and AFCS will insure that he continues to have 

a voice in such matters. 

To further clarify this guidance, Hq DSAF called a meeting for 
25 July at the Pentagon. An Air Staff briefing set down in 
some detail CSAF decisions regarding future missions, auth- 
orities, responsibilities, and inter-organizational relation- 
ships of the several commands. 122 a s mentioned earlier, PPlans 
and regulations were reworked accordingly and prepared for final 

Advocacy responsibility translated into m?npower re- 
quirements. A strong advocacy role for CIKCWRAD/CINCAD/ 
Commander ADC presupposed a residual management headquarters 

of sufficient she and with the requisite staff expertise to 
support his m'^sion. The acquisition of new responsibilities 
for day-tc-ddy management of aerospace defense systems also 
encouraged rhe gaining commands to seek the best possible man- 
ning situation, both in numbers and in specific skills, in 
the post-reorganization period. Few difficulties were anti- 
cipated in redistributing the bulk of ACCOM's manpower assets 
in the field. Individuals would remain in place and merely 
change their patch on transfer day. Management headquarters 
manpower requirements presented greater difficulty since new 
unit manning documents had to be constructed. The plan was 
for headquarters staff specialists—military and civilian-- 
to accompany functions transferred to the gaining commands. 
They would be assigned temporarily to liaison offices (in the 
cases of SAC and TAG) in anticipation of eventually moving to 
Lang ley and Offutt AFBs. The greatej part of these transfers, 
although they would bring some personal hardship to individu- 
als, were negotiated between the commands concerned without 
a great deal of difficulty. The reallocation of some spe- 
cialized and chronically undermanned skills (e.g. , pilots, 
navigators, space systems, computer systems, and weapons 
controllers) was more contentious, since ADCOM's resources 
were not sufficient to fulfill both the continuing require- 
ments of the ADC headquarters and the new requirements of 
SAC, TAC, and AFCS. 

To begin the redistribution process, each command 
a unit manning docum ent based on requirements gen- 
I by new mission responsibilities, ; ADCOM constructed 
one for ADC, and "upon receiving like documents from SAC, TAC, 
and AFCS, it made tentative selections for transfer of per- 
sonnel to those commands and identified surplus personnel 
(reorganisation "savings"). The ADCOM staff's reaction upon 
examining these documents was that their requirements ex* 
ceeded ADCOM's resources. 1 ^ The /\i T F 0rce Military Per- 
sonnel Center (AFMPC) found from preliminary work with major 
command documents that shortages would probably exist in some 
officer career fields. 124 j n a meeting called by MFC in the 
middle of May, Manpower and Personnel representatives from 
the several commands confirmed several problems handicapped 
completion of manpower documents; shortages of personnel 
(increased authorisations in some already undermanned AFSCs) ; 
equitable distribution of personnel, or, more specifically, 
the equitable distribution of shortages; future ADC manning 
{the size of the new headquarters and whether or not it should 
be manned on a priority basis had not been determined); and 
the conflict over assignment of individuals (in some cases all 
four commands wanted the same individual) .125 Command rep- 

p?sentatives had trouble with AFHPC's announced policy of 
equitable distribution of existing resources (largely AD- 
COM* a) in terms of numbers, expertise, and quality. They 
viewed it as an unrealistic course which could impact un- 
favorably on mission accomplishment. AFMPC said that in the 
absence of Hq USAF r>Tiority manning guidance, it could only 
proceed on the basis of equibility, and its tentative manning 
plan had been built on that premise. 126 When briefed on the 
meeting, General Hill also seemed to have doubts about how 
workable the share-alike plan would be. He reminded his 
staff that the reorganization had been sold on the basis of 
soecific manpower savings. Those spaces remaining after the 
cut were to be used to man the new ADC headquarters and to 
satisfy new requirements of the gaining commands. Those re- 
quirements should not exceed the spaces available. Hg wanted 
ADC to gain the best manning situation possible so as to in- 
sure no degradation of the mission. The CIN'C observed that 
if it came about that the requirements of the gaining com- 
mands exceeded the number of spaces made available in the 
Greenbook, the difference would have to be filled from other 
resources. 127 This guidance was followed in ADCOM's response 
to AF'iPC's canning plan: The command did not concur in those 
actions it believed would adversely affect mission accomplish- 
ment. It also believed that the new headquarters should be- 
gin its operations from the most favorable manning situation 
possible, since it would no longer be able to draw upon ex- 
pertise in field units. 128 

The January 1978 Greenbook established the 
total Air Force manpower authorisations for the residual head» 
quarters, the Air Defense Combat Operations Staff (ADCOS) in 
Cheyenne Mountain, and several operating locations and detach- 
ments at 1,572 spaces. The Air Staff subsequently agreed to 
add 55 more in consideration of new workloads added since the 
study was published, bringing the total to 1,625. 129 ADCOM's 
analysis of future needs indicated a minimum requirement for 
1,677 spaces (to man the new management headquarters, the 
Cheyenne Mountain Complex, and the 425 Munitions Maintenance 
Squadron). 130 This -left a difference of 52 spaces between 
what Air Force' had approved and what ADCOM wanted, Subse- 
quently, ADCOM adjusted its requirement downward, to 1,575, 
when it was decided the 425 MUNS5 {104 spaces) would be trans- 
ferred to TAC.131 An early February 1979 request to USAF 
for an additional 52 soaces brought the CSAF's reply that 
CTNCMORAD should examine the 1,521 spaces then provided with 
a view toward decreasing that number, since Air Force man- 

power requirements for the new headquarters seemed to be 
"somewhat overstated. "132 General Hill later reported that 
ADCOM had looked at several ways to restructure the new head- 
quarters to save manpower, but it had always come up several 
spaces short of the 1,573 ceiling .133 He remained convinced 
any lower manning would impact adversely on vital functions 
and responsibilities. Air Force, however, refused to hudge 
from the 1,521 figure. 134 Out of appeals, ADCOM had no re- 
course but to reduce the new headquarters. Notices went 
out to the staff on 24 July that the spaces had been removed 
from the Aerospace Defense Center UDL.135 

The issue of ADC manning settled, at the 25-27 
July meeting at Hq USAF, the commands were told to review 
and revalidate their requirements and send them to USAF by 
the middle of August, so that by early September the USAF 
validation could be in the hands of AFMPC. Command repre- 
sentatives were told that Air Staff" functional managers would 
henceforth prioritise critical AFSCs and arbitrate on the 
distribution of ACCOM's personnel assets if requirements 
shortfalls arose. i56 General Hill thought it was not" the 
business of Air Staff functional managers to decide what 
he as a specified and binational commander needed to fulfill 
his operational mission. 137 Subsequent efforts by the Air 
Staff only increased his concern and inspired a message to 
the Vice Chief of Stiff about the process of realigning re- 
quirements without due consideration of operational require- 
ments and the involvement of commands responsible for carry 
ing out the reorganization. General Hill believed ADCOM and 
not the Air Staff should serve as the "honest broker" for the 
allocation of limited critical skills, because ClNCAD's con- 
cern was for the operational mission, and he could be expect- 
ed to do his best to insure'SAC, TAC, and AFCS were effec- 
tively manned to carry out their aerospace defense management 
functions. 138 while the idea of CINCAD as "honest broker" 
did not catch on, he was assured the "... reorganization 
of ADCOM assets will be accomplished with no mission degrada- 
tion." The Vice Chief of Staff called a 17 September meeting 
at Headquarters USAF (instead of AFMPC} in which it was hoped 
the manning .issued could finally be settled so as not to delay 
other reorganization actions. 139 Headquarters USAF direction 
to AFMPC prior to the meeting was that in the critical pilot 
(14XX), navigator (22XX), weapons controller (17XX), and 
space systems (20XX) fields equitable manning would be made 
first using ADCOM resources, and then MPC should try to in- 

crease the panning percentage using other resources to bring 
vt up to 80 percent if possible. ^ d The meeting was success- 
ful, and the AFK?C project officer subsequently reported a 
distribution process had beer, agreed upon by all, to include 
the Batching of people to spaces. Ml 

Henceforth the aerospace defense mission area 
would b? the responsibility of CINCNORAD/CINCAD/CGMADC, as 
the operator, arid COMTAC, COMSAC, and COMAFCS as resource 
asnagers. Organization and mission regulations for the four, 
put into find fars in the late July Pentagon meeting, were 
?:•!• st the printers at the end of the year, but nevertheless 
were in force unofficially when on 1 October and 1 December 
transfers of responsibilities took place. AFR 25-9, "Organi- 
:stior. ind Mission - Field, Aerospace Defense Center (ADC)," 
described the responsibilities of the'new headquarters, its 
support of the binational MORAD and joint CINCAD inissions, 
and its relationshios with the three comaands exercising re- 
source aaftsgeBent. " CIKQfORAD/CINCAD continued to exercise 
operational control over all U.S. and Canadian forces assigned. 
As the overall advocate for the strategic defense mission of 
the JCS, he would identify overall mission area needs. His 
command authority would enter SAC, TAC, and AFCS units at the 
field headquarters and unit level; he would have no command 
would participate in the development and acquisition of his 
command and control system, and direct its operation. He would 
also receive from resource managers information on significant 
changes in logistical support and basing alignment which he 
would use to exoress his views and have them considered before 
a final decision was made. The Center supporting CINCNORAD/ 
CINCAD would be a direct reporting unit to CSAF and serve as 
the Air Force field with coordinating authority for the inte- 
gration, of Air Force activities in the strategic aerospace 
mission area. It would have the authority to require consul- 
tation between the resource managers, but not to compel agree- 
ment. CSAF retained this prerogative. COMADC would translate 
CINCAD 1 s mission area needs into program requirements and 
transmit them to the resource managers for inclusion in the 
PPBS cycle. COMADC would review resource manager recommenda- 
tions when they bore on the budget, and he had direct access to 
CSAF should he believe ADC priorities were being neglected. 

The reorganization plan called for the new head- 
quarters to be moved from the Chidlaw Building to Peterson AFB. 

The lease on the downtown building would not be renewed, and 
the Air Force would thereby save about a million dollars a 
year in rent. Plans to accomplish the move were prepared by 
the end of 1979, but funding problems (the substantial dif- 
ference between ABC's estimate of what it needed for minor 
repair and rehabilitation at Peterson and the amount the Air 
Force would provide) threatened to delay the move beyond the 
summer of 1980 goal. 

Until the middle 1970s aerospace defense headquar- 
ters functions in the Colorado Springs area were located on 
Ent AFB and in the Chidlaw Building, a leased facility. Be- 
ginning in FY- 71, and for 10 years thereafter, ABC, and later 
ADCOH, submitted in the Military Construction Program (MCP) a 
requirement for a new headquarters building at Peterson AFB. 
It planned to consolidate there scattered staff elements and 
then close its expensive downtown installations. The command 
asked for a building to house about 2,000 people, but the 
orice of 522 million caused it to be dropped perennially from 
the MCP. By the end of 1976 ADCOH had closed Ent AFB and ' 
distributed those disposed throughout the Chidlaw Building, 
Peterson AFB, and the Cheyenne Mountain complex. Now more 
than ever, ADC0M looked to a new building at Peterson as the 
solution of its future needs. General Daniel James, Jr. 
submitted a requirement for a new NORAD/ADCQM building in the 
FY* 79 MCP as his number one priority. It would cost $11.8 
million and house 1,400 persons,^ 2 

Headquarters USAF was also anxious that ADCOH conso- 
lidate its activities at Peterson, but within existing facili- 
ties. It was unlikely, Air. Force said, that the new head- 
quarters project would be approved in the near future. One 
"promising approach" suggested to solve the problem of rising 
construction and rental costs was to vacate the Chidlaw and 
Federal Buildings and move people into space made available in 
Cheyenne Mountain and on Peterson by "compressing" functions 
already theTe. Also, facilities not being used as adminis- 
trative space' could be easily and economically converted to 
such use. 145- General James replied that the feasibility of 
such a recommendation had been studied repeatedly for several 
years, but the answer always came out the same: The move was 
not practical unless a new headquarters building was construct- 
ed .* 44 In July 1976 General James counted for General Jones 
the cost of" ADCOH remaining downtown past 1982: $180,000 a 

year for rent of the Federal Building, $150,000 for trans- 
portation, and S2 million rent for the Chidiaw Building. 
He said a new building could be amoritized in six years based 
on elimination of those costs , 1 ^ 

The nev headquarters remained ADCOM's number one 
priority in construction in the FY-79 HCP, although further 
refinement of the command's needs—based on a continued de- 
cline in manpower--reduced the requirement to a 1,000-man 
building costing about $10 million. General James noted that 
if the structure could be built with FY-79 funds, it would be 
available early 1981, two years before the lease on the Chid- 
iaw Building had to be renewed, and the rent of Si Billion 
could be saved. 1 " But once again the building dropped out of j 
the budget. In early December 1978, one montlvprior to com- 
pletion of the final draft air defense reorganization plan, 
ADCOM updated its headquarters building requirement with a 
request* in the FY-81 MCP for a 176,000 square foot building 
for liOOO people costing $11. 4 million. 14 ' The Greenbook, 
however, postulated a sizeable reduction in both ADCOM head- 
quarters personnel and spaces at Peterson AFB supporting the 
MAJCOM, and the movement of key intelligence and operations 
personnel into Cheyenne Mountain. It said the Chidiaw Build- 
ing could be vacated and the residual staff relocated to 
buildings at Peterson AFB "with minimum turbulence and no sig- 
nificant facility. : ienovations.J'*.lJJ'- . .»«. >- •*-«*• **.; 

Responding to CSAF's call for surveys at the several 
bases affected by the reorganization, and in order to deter- 
mine what needed to be done in the way of facility modifica- 
tion or new construction,!" ADCOM examined several options 
involving new construction and relocation and renovation of 
existing buildings at Peterson AFB. If a move into existing 
facilities became necessary, Building 1470, housing Head- 
quarters, 46 Aerospace Defense King, was the only suitable 
facility, for the new -management headquarters. 150 But this 
and other options involving renovation were costly 
temporary expedients. Also, it would be uneconomical to 
negotiate a new lease for the "Chidiaw Building. Only the net- 
headquarters option offered the potential for savings over 
the long term.151 In late April, ADCOM modified its FY-81 

* The report also stated that bases gaining personnel 
in the reorganization (at the time Tyndall, Offutt, tang- 
ley, and Scott} would be able to absorb them within existing 
facilities and total costs for minor renovation would not 
exceed $500,000. 

request for a new building at Peterson, reducing it in scope 
to a seven million dollar, 100,000 square foot structure, to 
house 600 people. 152 

Such plans ran counter to the Air Force's deter- 
mination that announced savings from the reorganisation remain 
valid. ADCOM therefore found no support for a new building at 
the Air Staff level. 153 A survey of Peterson facilities by an 
Air Staff team on 1-3 June affirmed that although some minor 
construction and building maintenance and repair work would be 
needed to locate the residual ADCOM staff in the wing head- 
quarters building, that facility was suitable and no new build- 
.ing was. needed. 1 "..- The GAO, however, kept the issue alive fo'r ' 
^awhile longer .when it issued a report on 25 June, which stated 
the Air Force was considering a half dozen options for bedding 
down personnels at Peterson, Offutt, and langley AFBs, and the 
cost could : be as much as $9.8 million.* 155 The Air Force. denied 
it planned a new headquarters building at Peterson, 15 6 and an 
affidavit to that effect was submitted by the Air FoTce Director 
of Bngineering and Services in the civil suit Mllett v. Brown, 
then in litigation. 157 

With the new building now a dead issue, ADCOM began 
.planning iu earnest' to move the approximately 600 personnel 
J whid^w,oulAjiake 1 .up»tie»neK«MC-.headq 
On Peterson AFB and to relocate the dispiaced"wiiig"to Building 
335;158 Tentative space allocations for ADC staff agencies 
were made and project documents for minor construction (P-341) 
and maintenance prepared. When it had surveyed Peterson in 
early June, the Air Staff team had estimated such -work would 
cost about $500,000 (this ■was also the limit on the expenditure 
of F-541 funds for which the Air Force had authority; projects 
costing more had to be authorized and funded by Congress). 
ADCOM's estimate of projects required at Peterson to beddown 
ADC, sent to USAF IS October, were over twice that amount: 
$1.36 million ($983,000 in construction and $382,000 in main- 
'tenan.ce and repair). 15 ^ General Hill thought some of the first 
year savings .to be realized from the reorganization should be 

*""" $7.4 million for a new building at Peterson and re- 
location of the printing plant there from the Chidlaw Building, 
and $2.4 million for improvements to existing buildings at 
Offutt and Langley AFBs. 

reapplied to these projects, and he solicited the Chief of 
Staff's support to provide the additional funds, WO The Air 
Force Vice .Chief of Staff replied that the Air Force was 
"tied to the previously established position" that the cost 
of moving ADC headquarters to Peterson would be $500,000, 
and that no new construction was required. He asked NORAD/ 
ADCOM to reduce the project to $500,000, doing only that work 
critical to moving the headquarters to Peterson. A future 
MCP project could then complete the reimovation of building 
1470*161 At the end of the year the ADC civil engineer was 
responding to this direction by scaling down facilities pro-. 
■ jects which would constitute a new package to be sent to 
Air Force early in 1980. 16z ; -.,.' ■ :; ;i.-vjwi^jij;, ..4.. ..J 

Summary . (U) By the end of 1979 , 87 percent of all 
the actions ..required by the reorganization programming plan 
had been completed. Remaining to be done was official dis- 
establishment of the major command ADCOM; completion of 
personnel transfers in the spring and summer of 1980; the , 
move to TAC and SAC liaison offices back to langley and 
Of f utt -AFBs ; and the move of ADC headquarters to Peterson 
AFB. None of these seemed to present any problems, except 
perhaps the move to Peterson. It was complicated by funding ' 
restrictions on the rehabilitation of facilities at the'base,; 
»and^,the -possible. relocation-therei,py^SAC,v.the*basei , 5*'new-3^i«i(-* 
owner, of 'new-missions which had not been considered in the 
reorganization plan. It would likely be at least 1981 before 
ADC could move to the base. 

The Air Force decision to reorganize its aerospace 
defense forces culminated a decade of decline in 'continental 
air defense. Studies during tie middle of the decade recom- ;., 
mended disestablishment of the major, command and the redis- : : 
tribution of its assets to other commands; but while cuts 
continued to be made, the basic ADCOM organizational struc- 
ture remained intact until Congressional pressure in late 1977 
and early 1978 caused the Air Force to accept as a mandate the 
closure of ADGOM-, Air Force Chief of Staff David Jones di- 
rected the Air -Staff Greenbook study which detailed how to 
accomplish the change. His sucessor, General Lew Allen, kept 
to the objective of completing the reorganization as it was 
.set down in the Greenbook and explained to the Congress and 
the public. Both NORAD/ABCOM commanders during the reorgani- 
zation era, Generals James and Hill, were unsuccessful with 

proposals which would have altered the Air Force plan. 
NORAD/ ADCOM (specified) /ADC, which retained operational 
control of forces, and SAC and TAC, who gained responsi- 
bility for resource management, differed on the division 
of authority for future systems advocacy to higher head- 
quarters. In the end, Hq USAF mediated. The redistribu- • 
tion of ADCOM' s manpower, especially those critical AFSCs 
in short supply, proved difficult, and all commands were 
forced to accept shortages for at least the immediate 

. The closure of ADCOM aroused no organized public 
opposition in Colorado Springs.' Community leaders were ; 
confident the local economy was strong enough .'to accept the 
loss with little or no long term effect. The Colorado Con- 
gressional delegation examined the reorganization in sev- 
eral committee hearings early in 1979, but found no support 
among their colleagues for further examination or delay of 
the action. The Air Force argument that the' change would 
save dollars without affecting performance fit well the 
general economy mood of the Congress. The only effective 
opposition came from 10 ADCOM civilian employees. They 
were successful in gaining a court injunction based on what 
they claimed were inadequacies, in thejiir Force's environ- 
"•mehtH"^ssessmentT'**fhis 'delayed action" for three months, '"'" 
but since the plaintiffs ran out of money before a decisive 
legal confrontation could take place, the validity of their 
case was never tested. All major reorganization actions 
were taken during the last three months of 1979, and with- 
out discernible effect on the operational condition of the 
various aerospace defense systems. 

For good or ill, aerospace defense had been 
reorganized. ' Even those who opposed this break with the 
traditional concept of organization established in 1946 with 
the formation of three CONUS combat commands (SAC, TAC, and 
ABC) seemed confident Air Force people would be flexible 
and adaptable enough to make the new organization work. 
It also presented an opportunity to enhance the aerospace 
defense mission area. CINCHORAD/CINCAD/Com ADC would 
now work closely with the commanders of two large and in- 
fluential commands in the promotion of systems moderniza- 
tion at the service and joint levels. The new relationship 

would call for close cooperation and interaction between the 
several staffs. If agreement on priorities could be achieved 
and sustained, the result Bight be an upturn in the funding 
fortunes of aerospace defense. 

Space Mission Organization Planning Study 

How the Air Force should organize itself to 
take on the increased responsibilities in space it expected 
to acquire during the decade of the 1980s and beyond had been 
studied with an increasing sense of urgency since at least 
1974, and continued to be during 1979. A decision in August 
: promised a sharper focus for research and development and : 
mission operations in Air Force Systems Command, but it fell 
short of providing the means for centralized management of 
all Air Force responsibilities in space operations, a deci- 
sion .'which ADCOH, for one, considered long overdue. 163 

In September 1978 Secretary of the Air 
Force John Stetson observed that because of evolving relation- 
ships with KASA over management of the Space Shuttle, the Air 
Force would need a stronger organization devoted to space ac- 
tivities than it then possessed, and he asked the Air Force 
to consider future space-organization options. 164 The Chief 
»>of ' Staff ■,.establisheoVii»Air» Staff ^xecutive-Committee-com-* " •• 
posed of Air Staff officers and officers from major, commands 
with present or predicted responsibilities in space to prepare 
a study to determine what action should be taken to respond to 
the Secretary's request.* The study, entitled "Space Mission 
Organization Planning Study" (SMOPS) was completed in Janu- 
ary 1979. It offered a choice. (it made no recommendation) ■ ■ 
between a functional arrangement, which would continue the 
present system of assigning responsibility for space systems 
on a case-by-case basis, and a centralized one, which would 
assign all assets to an existing command (SAC and AFSC) or 
place them under either a new Space Command or a Space- Service 
(under AFSC).. The Executive Committee also outlined the fol- 
lowing Air Force objectives for space: The Air Force should 
be the DOD executive agent for space, it should have opera- 
tional control of the Shuttle for missions involving national 

* fejor General B. K. Brown, DCS/0, represented 
ADCOM with staff 'support from tt Col S. Beamer (XP) and Lt Col 
J. B. Wilde (DO). 

security, it should acquire combat capabilities in space, 
and it should make the organizational changes needed to 
facilitate achieving operational objectives. 165 

Upon examination of the study, ADCOM 
concluded it actually offered two SAC alternatives, two 
AFSC alternatives, and a Space Command alternative. If the " 
ADCOM Reorganization was a reality (and study rules had con- 
sidered it such), then continuation of the functional status 
quo (Alternative A) would be tantamount to SAC's acquisition 
of the mission, since it acquired ADCOM missile 'naming and 
space surveillance assets. Alternative B also assigned maj- 
or space missions to SAC. Alternative C created a Space .'-.,_ t \ 
Command. Alternative D assigned operations-and^researchvandps*-^ 
developmentsto.AFSC. -Alternative B created- a,Space Service i'i-. 
under AFSC. 1 ' 6 ' ADCOM strongly, favored creation<of a. Space ,*_■ ■ '; 
Commands General Hill recommended to^Generai; Allen using 
ADCOM space^and missile. warning, systems and personnel to "... . 
create the aiew" organization (thus only half the Reqrganiza- •' . 
tioii would ; be "accomplished) , and building. on that nucleus' 
- by adding other Air Force space assets over time as they be- 
came operational. 167 This recommendation was made prior to 
the Air Force's final zero-based evaluation of the ADCOM 
; Reorganization, and, theoretically at least, while it was 
\ still negotiable. With the decision to proceed, however, 
. '-.and the -March ^ublicamiounceaent'of"the«3Ct'ionf'the-'ADC0M J '''* aw 
commander took a new position,' ' He told General Allen that 
in a perfect world he would stick with the Space Command as 
the best answer, but since it was probably infeasible po- 
litically to form a new command so soon after getting rid of 
one, the best solution seemed to be a variant of the Space 
Service offered by Lieutenant General Thomas Stafford, DCS/ 
Research and Development, Hq USAF. It would give the Ser-"^' • 
vice maj or 'command planning responsibilities and'dual-hat 5 ' 
the Vice CINCAD as its commander. This variant, General 
Hill. said, provided "... a coherent organizational rela- 
tionship between Service and specified command responsibili- 
ties. "168 . Replies from other major commanders andsenior 
Air Staff Officers showed a diversity of opinion about what 
should be done and when, but they seemed generally agreed 
that whether space went to an existing organization or to . 
one newly formed, stronger centralized management was needed. 169 

i Briefed on the alternatives for organiza- 
tional change in early June, General Allen made no decision. Not 

until early August did Secretary of the Air Force Dr. Han', 
Mark announce a decision to realign space and missile re- 
search, development, and test activities by deactivating, ef- 
fective 1 October, AFSC's Space and Missile Systems Organi- 
zation (SAMSO) and establishing two organizations--Ballistic 
Missile Office (BMO) and Space Division (SD) -- from 
its two former major subdivisions. The SD would continue 
space activities formerly the responsibility of SAMSO and add 
responsibilities for launch sites on the west and east coasts 
formerly operated by Space and Missile Test Center (SAMTEC), 
which would be deactivated. The Air Force said the change 
reflected the increased importance of its space activities' 
and would streamline organization and improve efficiency. 170 
Certainly it fulfilled the widely felt need to do .something,., 
but it also had the effect of shelving the Space Mission and ■ 
Organization Planning Study. • If in limbo, however, it was . 
not dead. Secretary Mark still maintained development of a 
doctrine and organization for increased activity in space was , 
one of the Air Force's three most important priorities. 171 On 
the eve of his retirement from the Air Force, in December ' 
1979, General Hill shared with General Allen his concerns' 
about the future of the Air Force as it regarded the space 
mission, and concluded "... that unless we make an explic- 
it organizational decision which assigns to a single organi- 
zation the Air Force responsibilities in space operations once 
and for' all, we will be'faced with serious, negative, long ;. 
"HerVlmpacts on~Yeso'urce management 'and'planning. "172 ■■■^■■•r='.V"-' 

The Joint U. S. -Canadian Air gefense Study (JUSCADS) 

'The growing obsolesence of early warning 
systems protecting- North America against bomber attack, the 
need to modernize them, and the expense of doing so were is- 
sues of , increasing concern to the United States and Canada. 
Experience gained in the joint program for acquisition of 
Region Control Centers for the Joint Surveillance System (JSS), 
and the -increasing austerity of defense budgets on both sides 
of the border, encouraged the two nations to look for more 
ways to share. the financial responsibilities of modernization. 
In June 1976, 'representatives of the two nations, meeting as 
the Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD), agreed to hold 
talks on how arrangements for cost sharing should be pursued. 
A Joint Steering Group -.was subsequently formed to examine com- 
■ mon points of departure; and by early 1977 a package approach 
to system acquisition, in which each country would accept to- 
tal management responsibility for specific joint systems as 
the basis for equitable division of national responsibilities, 

had been agreed upon. Further discussion was then postponed 
pending completion by the U.S. of a study of the air breath- 
ing threat and consequential decisions by Secretary of De- 
fense Brown (Amended Program Decision Memorandum) . There- 
after, talks resumed, and at the June 1978 PJBD meeting the 
Canadian Steering Group Chairman reported a paper was hearing 
completion which proposed financial sharing for certain sys- 
tems in Canada and Alaska. 173 

To this point, cost sharing had focused on programs 
developed in large measure independently by the two nations, 
and had been concerned primarily with modernizing current 
equipment in existing locations. In a letter to U.S. Secre- 
tary of Defense. Brown, on 10 May, 1978, however, ^Canadian Min- ? . 
■ ister of Defence "Eam'ett-'Jr.Danson'noted that' by continuing in 
'that direction "we run the-risk of investing large aiounts of 
money in rebuilding a North American air defence system es- 
sentially designed, to meet the Soviet threat., of the 1950s and 
early 1960s, and that .part of it still in service." ■ Danson 
urged a more in-depth study be undertaken of ~the potential air 
breathing threat to North America in the 1980s and beyond, 
and what advanced techniques might be available in that 
period to meet it. 174 Asked to comment on this proposal by 
General David Jones, Chairman of. the JCS, General Hill 
concurred with Canada's premise that/miitiiaLiefense re-, ....;■■■ 
quirements should be 'considered in a'Nbrth American context, ^ 
and-ne-supported"any?-action"tha't"woul , d furtherMat precept'."" - 
If a study was determined to be the."appropriate"course, NORAp . 
would lend :its. full. support. 1? 5; .Secretary Brown replied to - .■ 
Danson on 29 June that the Air Defense Steering Group already 
in existence should determine if further studies were required. 
He emphasized, however, that if a joint effort were under- 
taken, it should be completed, quickly so decisions could be 
incorporated into defense planning as soon as possible; and ~ 
he said under no circumstances should the study unnecessarily 
delay joint consideration of problems relating to current sys- 
tems and their near-term improvement. *76 

The Steering Group met on 28 September and - 
confirmed tliat'a study was needed. 1/7 Subsequently, both the 
U.S. and Canada prepared draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for 
the study effort, and in early November these were used to pre- 
pare a joint 'document-. In its final form, after coordination 
at NORAD, the TOR stated the purpose of the Joint U.S. -Canada 
Air Defense Study (JUSCADS) was: "To, define options, in terms 
of cost and effectiveness, for a systems and programmatic plan 
that would meet North American air defense needs from the 
present through about the year 2000, and to identify potential 

technological opportunities for joint U.S. -Canadian research 
and development . "178 Requirements for defense against both 
the bomber and cruise missile threat would be examined and con- 
sidered in the context of North America. Two time periods-- 
the present to about 1985 and 198S to 200G--would be consid- 
ered, and within each period the study would integrate systems 
and programs into various architectures for a North American 
air defense system. The study would be prepared by a joint 
U.S. group of specialists from System Planning Corporation (a 
U.S. "think tank" firm), other similarly oriented companies, 
and U.S. and Canadian governmental agencies. Mr. E. C. Aid- 
ridge, Vice President of System Planning Corporation, was 
named the study. director, and Brig Gen (CF-Ret) J. J. Collins , L 
its associate director.- An oversight Joint Working Group, co- ',$ 
chaired by Mr. George Bader (OSD/ISA) and Maj Gen (CF) Norman / 
Trower, would follow the Study Group's efforts, provide di- 
rection, and periodically report progress to the Joint Steer- 
ing Group, The Steering Group, co-chaired by Mr. James Siena, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for ISA (European and 
NATO Affairs), and Mr. John Anderson, Assistant Deputy Min- 
ister (Policy), National Defence Headquarters, would provide ■ 
management guidance and periodically review the study's prog- 
ress to ensure it met the objectives set down in the TOR. 179 
While NORAD concurred in the joint TOR, -and was anxious to 
lend its expertise to --the study in an advisory capacity,18G 
it^like^e'gretarv^Brpwnj .hoped»there„ would, be no<-delays in ^w*-* 
programs already approved. In a letter to Secretary Brown in 
mid-October, General Hill spoke of "ominous signs that there were 
those /JinnamedJ who would use the study as an excuse to delay 
or defer even the most modest modernization and improvements 
already approved or underway. "181.. ■ ■ 

■'""" The Study Group assembled in early 1979, and, ., 
in the middle of February held its first full meeting, at 
NORAD, to complete a plan for the report. 182 Progress reports 
presented at a meeting in Ottawa later that month indicated 
the study would make recommendations for minimum warning and 
defense capabilities and then examine successive increasing 
levels of capabil-ity .to a maximum level. The schedule' at this 
point called for- a preliminary status report to be given the 
Steering Group in early April, the initial report would be 
sent out for review on 1 June, and the final report was to be 
delivered 3 July. USAF Air Staff officers attending the Ot- 
tawa meeting reportedly emphasized again the importance of no 
delays. 183 A study progress report presented by the directors 
to interested parties in the Pentagon, at NORAD, and in Ottawa, 
in early April, indicated that although a good beginning had 
been made, analysis of near term air defense enhancements 

needed to be strengthened in order to provide a more sound 
transition to future space based systems. U.S. Working Croup 
members who heard a pre" iminary report briefing on 4 April 
were concerned that not only was the idea of a leap-frog into 
space inconsistent with the study's TOR, but also insufficient 
consideration had been given to the effect such an approach 
would have on Canadian participation, since that nation had 
barely begun to formulate a national space policy. After hear- 
ing the preliminary report on 10 April, 184 General Hill wrote 
lieutenant General Richard t. Lawson, Director of Plans and 
Policy (J-S), JCS, that he did not quarrel with the emphasis 
being given space systems, only to the timing: "Discounting 
that feature which had our action officers concerned—whether 
■or not we should try to leap-frog to space-based radar--there v 
is^no'-'doubtthat'the study will conclude in an emphatic way ; * 
that'-space is where much of tomorrow's air defense job will 
have to be done when technology permits. It is not a. question 
of ii--only when'."185 Tentative conclusions reached by the 
Study/Group, and briefed to NORAD," the Working Group, and the 
Steering 'Group in late May and June, were little different in 
substance from the preliminary results briefed in April. Op- 
tions were presented for the near term to reduce operations 
and support costs of the existing system, and emphasis was 
placed on early initiation of research development testing and 
evaluation for space surveillance. systems., .Those briefed con- 
tinued to be concerned about the technical and budgetary risks ' 
-involved •in"'iliSv , ing"iMo , "spl'ce tob^rJon'^They wanted more at"-' '" 
tention- given to bridging options involving enhanced ground 
systems to make sure no- air' defense gap- was created 'in the late' 
years of the century before space based systems were operation- 
al. 186 The Canadian deputy CHCNORAD summed up NORAD's view: 
"While space based systems offer potential for the future, in 
our view they.- do not answer the threat we face in the 80s and 
90s. More emphasis should be placed on how we can best meet * 
our near and mid-term requirements. Therefore, we should plan 
for grou,.d based systems to provide the long range tactical 
warning hedge between the thseat of the 80s and 90s to the 
turn of the century while at the same time continuing an 
orderly R§D process towards bringing in a space based capa- 
bility during the early part of the next century. "187 

Given the circumstance that in June signif- ' 
leant study issues remained unresolved, it became clear that 
the early July completion date for the final report' could not 
be met. The Aldridge- Collins group requested, and was grant- 
ed, a month's extension. This date proved also unrealistic, 
however, as the study went through three drafts (10 July, 
15 August, and 25 September). The NORAD staff provided ex- 
tensive comments on the drafts, which showed substantial 

improvement after the first one was judged unacceptable.!" 8 
General Hill wrote the co-chairmen of the Joint Steering 
Group in early October that he found the third ai.d final 
draft report "an excellent starting point "for modernising the 
North American aerospace defense posture," It identified the. 
limitations of existing systems, documented the need for in- 
cremental improvement, and provided various alternatives for 
resolution of air defense problems through the remaining two 
■ decades of the century, Although NORAD's preferred policy 
alternative was Alternative IV* (described as survivable 
forces for defense of strategic and major industrial targets 
against large scale bomber attack following an ICBM attack), 
"budgetary and political constraints made its acceptance un- 
likely," and so the more prudent approach seemed:to be Al- 
ternative III (nonsurvivable forces which would'. provider- 
warning and characterization and a highly effective'-defense 
of strategic and major industrial targets against .a small 
bomber attack without a prior missile attack). - Upon examin- 
ation of the various options presented for improving the ef- 
ficiency of existing systems and using the resulting savings 
to achieve the surveillance capability at longer ranges and 
lower altitudes needed to meet the projected threat to the 
year 2000, CINCNORAD believed the first step should be Op- 
tion IB, followed by Option 2,189 These were described in 
the JUSCAD report as follows:^ ■ • 

-"-'• Option lB:« WbuM'remove the'interi'or'Pinerr'ee'lnJi'*''""'' ' 
northern tier JSS radars, remove alert sites 'along 
the northern U..S. border, redeploy new Canadian - •. 7 
interceptors in south-central Canada, operate ex- 
isting types of U.S. interceptors, deploy new radars ■ 
near mid-Canada, and modernize the DEW line with suf- 
ficient numbers of radars' to provide high-altitude 
detection and warning (over 10,000 ft). This option, 
by having radar coverage over most of Canada, would 
(1) provide a virtual attrition system for bomber 
attacks from the north attempting to fly under radar 
coverage (Backfire would have a marginal capability 
to attack North American targets using such north- 
ern routes),"" (2)- provide an infrastructure to support 

F Four yjlicy alternatives were developed to de- 
scribe the range of mission priorities, design requirements, 
and -capabilities which it was possible to derive from NORAD's 
mission of air sovereignty, warning and defense. 

AWACS operations in mid-Canada, and (3) provide a 
capability to periodically enforce airspace sover- 
eignty in selected areas of the Arctic Region (using 
the intercept control capability that would exist 
in the modernized DEW radars}. It would cost about 
$17. 1 billion to implement over the 1980-2000 period 
and save about 2,700 personnel over the current 

Option 2: Add long-range, all - altitude coverage 
to Option 1 as soon as possible to meet the project- 
ein Areat with_ the immediate procurement of Ot 'H-8/ 
gapfnie r radgrs. This option would (lj deploy 
three~"dTH-!B'~rad"ar sites and a number of gapfiller 
radars to the DEW line . , . and (2) modernize a $■ 
significant fraction (five squadrons) of the U.S. 
interceptor force with current production (F-15 
type) interceptors on a schedule consistent with 
the introduction of OTH-B radars. The nunber of 
gapfiller radars would depend on the variant of 
Option 1 selected and the altitude of coverage 
desired. Where all U.S. interceptor alert sites 
are manned with F-4s and F-l06s in Option 1, every 
other U.S. alert site (a total of 10) would be 
equipped with F-ISs in this option to facilitate 
long-range, over-ocean, all-altitude. operations.' 
'. ■ A space_ sensor, would, be,. planned foj rf deplpvaent-in.« *--., 
""^'".'the i at g- j j_j)j}0 s ^ 3n( j Arctic interceptor operations 
will be required against the projected threat" in 
that period. This option' would add '$7.8 billion to 
..the 20-year cost of Option 1, of which about $2 
billion is required over the next five years, and add 
about 1,000 more personnel to Option 1 (a reduction 
of 2,000 from the current system). 

Considering the technical risfcs involved, possible fiscal con- 
straints, and competing defense priorities, CINCN0RAD be- 
lieved it unlikely that a production decision on a space 
based atmospheric sensor would be made before the 1990s; and 
this left OTH .radar, an improved DEW Line, and a relocated 
CAD1N (Continental Air Defense Integration North)/Pinetree 
Line to provide the capabilities needed through the end of 
the century. 191 

On 26 October 1979 the U.S. -Canadian Air 
Defense Steering Group accepted the JUSCADS, subject to the 
inclusion of several final changes. Now, according to the 
Group, each country must evaluate the study and begin 

formulating an air defense policy .192 Upon hearing the final 
study briefing on 8 November, General Hill remarked that the 
study's strength was that it pointed out clearly the neces- 
sity for both countries to formulate a mutually acceptable 
air defense policy. 193 Asked by the JCS to offer his recom- 
mendations, General Hill responded to General Jones that he 
welcomed the opportunity, since "... the lack of a clear 
policy has left this mission area open to such widespread 
interpretation that realistic planning has become a difficult 
and unproductive task. "194 NORAD's policy paper examined the 
evolution of air defense policy from Secretary of Defense 
McNamara to Secretary Brora and found a consistent lack of 
interest in building an atmospheric defense against bombers, 
the argument being that it would be wasteful to do so when 
the nation "possessed no defense against ballistic missiles- 
Force structure ^ decisions had been based on such official 
statements, "-although strategic guidance from the JCS and 
Canadian Defence -Staff regarding NORAD/ADCOM's responsibility 
to defend North American airspace did not always take into 
consideration!the ; 'resultant decline in forces. NORAD main- 
tained "These anomalies between policy guidance, strategic 
guidance, and programmatic action's . . ." had created a gulf 
between strategic defense tasks assigned the command and its 
ability to perform, produced a diversity of interpretations 
about the mission area which had weakened force planning and 
delayed modernization, reduced NORAD's effectiveness to a 
^.limitedsability to exercise.sov.ereignty in-rNorthJuneritan' 
airspace, eliminated the command's ability to deny "unchal- 
lenged access" to intruders, and permitted the Soviets to ex- 
ploit defense gaps using their existing bomber forces. Re- 
cent U.S. and Canadian recognition of the need for a joint 
policy for North American air defense on which to base future 
systems acauisition had inspired the JUSCAD study. It had 
concluded a mutually acceptable air defense policy must pre- 
cede decisions regarding systems modernization, and several 
policy alternatives and systems options were offered. Con- 
sidering, the wide range of possible policy options available, 
NORAD concluded that at a minimum both nations needed " . . . 
a capability for enforcing collectively, the integrity of 
North American airspace and for providing sufficient warning 
of bomber /cruise missile attack to ensure the survivability 
of United States strategic retaliatory capabilities." To 
carry out this- mission,. NORAD said military forces "... 
must have an inherent war-fighting capability to counter a 
potential threat before it can reach its weapons release 
point;" The size of these forces would be based on the re- 
quirement to use the war-fighting. capabilities of dedicated 
forces to enforce the integrity of North American airspace. 

Such an "airspace 1 integrity enforcement system" would have 
the following characteristics, according to NORAD; a capa- 
bility to detect a potential bomber and cruise missile car- 
rier attack on North America and to provide timely warning; 
great enough range to permit identification and assessment of 
the threat short of the weapons release time; a system 1 for em-'" 
ploying augmentation forces in time of crisis; and growth po- 
tential to counter a future increased cruise missile or bomber 
threat. NORAD said its recommended air defense policy would 
enable near term objectives to be maintained (especially it 
would help solve the disparity between means and ends); and, 
in the long term, it would facilitate exploitation of new 
technologies for a future space based atmospheric detection 
and warning system and directed energy weapons. 195 . . : _ 

) ". Some of NORAD's ideas were" used in. another" 
policy paper, prepared by the JCS, which went to the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense (ISA) in early Deceaber, The JCS 
believed the JUSCADS had been useful to a better understand- 
ing of present deficiencies in North American air defense, 
and in identifying and evaluating various options for future 
planning. Taking particular note that the existing system 
could not provide warning and attack characterization of a 
bomber and CTuise missile attack, the JCS emphasized the need 
to " . . , possess the capability to provide the eJCA with , 
timely and .accurate tactical warning ar.d characterization of ._ 
a smal^J3omber^cpise,missile aJtack.on^s,trategica retaliatory-** 
'forces"Tnd'/'o'F"tIie strategic $ elements' for directing the ' . 
launch of these forces." The JCS believed the "modest, ded- 
icated interceptor force" responsible for determining the 
character of the attack, and augmented by general purpose 
forces, would be capable of limiting damage by_ such attacks. 
Peacetime control of airspace would be maintained by forces 
deployed for tactical warning and attack characterization. 
The JCS agreed that all future planning for tactical warning'^ 
airspace control, and air defense should be considered from a 
North American perspective, and that Canada should be a full 
partner in such endeavors. 196 

i. .* While it contained some of NORAD's ideas, ' ■ 
the JCS papers placed emphasis not on enforcing the integrity 
of U.S. airspace, but on warning and attack characterization. 
NORAD DCS/Plans officers concluded this would call for an- 
other assessment of the air breathing threat, a subject about 
'which there had been diverse opinion in the past, and perhaps 
again block modernization. It was expected the JCS policy 
would be reflected first in the Secretary of Defense's Defense 
Policy Guidance document, in January 1980, and later on in 

the Consolidated Guidance document. In the meantime, Canada 
«as also at work on a policy paper. The binational Steering 
Group expected to meet in February 1980 to. discuss the next 
step, a joint U.S. -Canada air defense policy. 197 


ADCOM/ADC Authorized and Assigne d Personnel 

ADCQM was authorized 25,236 manpower spaces (3,278 
officers, 17,794 airmen, and 4,164 civilians) on the Unit 
Manning Document (UMD) on 30 June 1979. This was a decrease 
of 1,136 spaces since the beginning of the year when 26,372 
spaces were authorized (3,281 officers, 18,871 airmen, and 
4,220 civilians). With the accomplishment on 1 October 1979 
of the first phase of the reorganization, ADCOM authorized 
manpower spaces dropped to 4,129 spaces (1,038 officers, 
2,277 airien, and 814 civilians); and by the end of 1979, with 
all major reorganization actions completed, only 1,578 nan- 
power spaces were authorized ADCOM/ADC (598 officers, 691 air- 
men, and 289 civilians). The total reduction during 1979 was 
24>794 spaces or 94 percent. 198 

The command was overmanned by 649 in airmen (18,871 
authorized and 19,520 assigned) at the beginning of the year, 
but, was short of both officers (3,281 authorized and 3,236 
1 assigned) "and civilians''(4-,220-authorized -'and 3,927 assigned);** 
By the end of 1979, the airman overage had dwindled to 83 
(691 authorized and 774 assigned) . A modest officer overage 
of 19 (598 authorized and 617 assigned) existed at this time 
and in civilians ADC -was overmanned by 291 (289 authorized 
and 580 assigned) .199 

WORAD Authorized and Assigned Personnel 

NORAD Joint Table of Distribution (JTD) manpower 
authorizations remained relatively firm. There were 544 
manpower spaces authorized (254 officers, 284 airmen, and 
6 civilians) at the beginning of 1979 and 527 authorized at 
the end of 19)9'(244 officers, 277 airmen, and 6 civilians). 
Correspondingly, the total personnel assigned to NORAD 
decreased by 11 by the end of the year: five fewer officers 
and six fewer 'airmen. -Each of the six COHUS NORAD Regions 
lost one officer assigned , (except the 26th NORAD Region). 
The 22d NORAD Region lost three airmen assigned; and ADCOS, 
23d, and 25th NORAD Regions each lost one airman assigned.™ 

Reorganization and Reduction of the Headquarters Staff 

The Aerospace Defense Center and its only major sub- 
ordinate unit, the Aerospace Defense Combat Operations Staff 
(ADCOS), both activated on 1 December, wore authorized a 
total of 1,521 Air Force spaces (308 for the headquarters and 
the remainder for the ADCOS). By the end of the year, 57 more 
spaces had been added (35 for Detachment l's AWACS mission 
and 22 for the ADCOS Space Defense Operations Center), to 
bring the Air Force total authorization to 1,578. By virtue 
of its joint and binational responsibilities, NORAD/ADCOM 
(specified) Has also allocated 354 Joint Table of Distribution 
(JTD) spaces in the headquarters, ADCOS, and Det 1, Tinker AFB, 
0K. S Forty-six of these were Canadian spaces and the remain- 
der U.S. (USAF, USA, I1SN, and Marine Corps). The total auth,^, 
orized manning (Air Force and Joint manning) ,was 1 932. As-* 
signed Air Force strength was 1,971, or 39-' more than author- 
ised, a reflection of the number of personnel actions still , 
to be accomplished at the. end of the year. . The^-traditionally 
stable JTD showed five fewer assigned than authorized. L'Tplal 
assigned strength to NORAD/ADCOM (specified) /ADC was 2.493.201 

The principal manpower savings from the reorgani- 
zation came from the major command headquarters. Headquar- 
ters staff agencies underwent change to one degree or another 
in the late months of 1979 as they reorganised .and reduced'to, 
assume the responsibilities of Aerospace .De£eSjjiCente'r,_ Of , 
the«17-'"deputates-and'"SpeciarStaff Element? 8 which',had aade'up' 
the major command headquarters, three (Chief of "Safety,. Sur- 
geon, and Chaplain) were not represented in the' Center or- 
ganization; ajxd one (DCS/Engineering and Services) lost its 
separate status and became a directorate in DCS/Logistics. " 
The 13 remaining were reduced in assigned manpower from 13 to 
SO percent during the last half of the year. , DCS/Intelli- 
gence felt the least bite and Security Police the most, but ; s 
the average reduction was 51 percent. In a class by itself ' 
was DCS/Communications, Electronics and Computer Resources, 
which by virtue of new responsibilities gained in the Teor- ' 
ganization actually increased its strength by 21 percent. 
Internal headquarters staff changes necessitated by the tran- 
sition from i major command headquarters to a Center having 
more limited responsibilities are described in the following 

On 1 December 1979, the Deputy Chief of Staff for 
Personnel reorganized into three primary directorates: 

« 173 more belonged to CODS NORAD Regions and the 
Alaskan NORAD Region. 

Manpower, Plans and Programs, and Military Personnel. There 
»as no change made to the Any Support Element or the Joint 
Service Manning Division. DCS/Personnel assigned manning 
dropped 24 percent from June to December 1379.202 

Assigned on 30 June 1979 

52 USAF 33 DAFC 
1 Amy 1 KAF 

Assigned on 31 December 1979 


1 Army 4 Amy 

The deputate's authorized ADC manning »as 9 Air Force and 6 JTD 
spaces. Ten spaces Here authorized the J-l function in ADCOS. 
(See Authorized Manning Chart on the following page.) 

, "" DCS/Intelligence also reorganized on 1 December 
1979'-, By-so -doing it hoped to improve'the-substantive'intel- 
ligence capability and quality of production in the J-2 or- 
ganization and to enhance the intelligence planning capabil- 
ity through consolidation of like functions and reduction in 
the span of control of the deputate. Five directorates Here 
consolidated into three: Operational Intelligence, Intelli- 
gence Systems, and Intelligence -Plans and Programs. 203 The 
deputate lost 13 percent of its assigned personnel from the end 
of June to the end of December 1979.204 

on 30 June 1979 

Officers Airmen Civilians 

11 Army 3 Amy 

9 Navy 5 Navy 

Assigned on 31 December 1979 

71 USAf 

5 Any 

9 Navy 3 Navy 

60 USAF 71 USAf 

1 Any 5 Any 

Authorized manning in ADC was 2 Air Force and 26 JTD posi- 
tions. The J-2 function in ADCOS was authorised 1S2 positions. 
(See Authorized Manning Chart on the proceeding page.) 

DCS/Operations (J-3) continued to be organised into 
seven directorates during 1979. The title of the Directorate 
of Systems Control and Configuration was changed on 1 Decem- 
ber 1979 to the Directorate of User Interface Configuration 
and Control. On 1 October 1979, all responsibility for dai- 
ly management of air defense forces was transferred to TAC. 
Generally, the functions lost concerned aircrew training, 
aircrew evaluation, flying hour management, and other associ- 
ated responsibilities such as aircraft displays, life support, 
and airspace. The deputate decreased 27 percent in assigned 
personnel from June to December 1979. On 30 June the deputate 
iiad 217 personnel assigned (133 officers, 43 airmen, and 41 
civilians); or, 31 December 1979, there were 158 personnel as- 
signed (96-officers, 28' airmen, and 34 civilians). 205 Auth- 
orized majining lw in,ADC was,93 Air_Force and„2S. 1 JTD.positions. . - 
The J-3 function in ADCOS was authorized 312 positions. (See 
Authorized Manning Chart.) 

.The loss of resource management responsibility for 
aerospace defense systems to other commands resulted in sub- 
stantial changes in DCS/Logistics (J-4). It reorganized from 
eight directorates to three: Civil Engineering, Weapon Sys- 
tems Logistics, and Logistics Plans and Programs. Functions 
transferred were as follows: 

a. The Directorate of Contracting transferred to SAC on 
1 November 1979, 

b. The DEW System Office (Detachment 3, 46th Aerospace 
Defense Wing) transferred to ADTAC on 1 October 1979. 

c. Directorate of Supply functions transferred in part 
to ADTAC on 1 October and in part to SAC on 1 November 1979. 

d. Directorate of Transportation functions transferred 
to ADTAC on 1 October 1979 and to SAC on 1 November 1979. 

e, Directorate of logistics Plans and Programs functions 
for NORAD were retained. All others transferred to ABTAC on 

1 October 1979 and to SAC on 1 November 1979. 

f. The Directorate of Communications and Electronics was 
split up among SAC, TAC, AFCC, aid NORAB DCS/Communications, 
Electronics and Computer Resources (J-6). The J-6 staff as- 
sumed monitoring responsibility for Hq NORAD Cheyenne Mountain 
Complex and contributing sensors. 

h. Directorate of Maintenance Engineering functions (dai- 
ly management of aircraft, munitions, and related weapons sys- 
tem) transferred to ABTAC on 1 October 1S79. The control and 
accountability of the AIR-2A weapons and logistics planning 
and advocacy for NORAB remained with the NORAB/BCS Logistics 

(U) BCS/Logistics reassigned 207 personnel to TAC on 
1 October 1979 and 128 personnel to SAC on 1 Becember 1979. 
' From' June to December, the deputate lost 88 percent of its as- 
signed personnel:^ 

Manning on 30 June 1979 

Officers Airmen Civilians 

Manning on 31 December 1979 

The deputate'^ authorized ADC manning was S Air Force and 2 JTB 
spaces. Twenty-six spaces were authorized the J-^unction in 
ADCOS. (See Authorized Manning Chart.) 

DCS/Plans and Programs (J-5) organized a new direc- 
torate on 1 October 1979 titled the Directorate of Command and 
Control. On 1 December 1979 the title of the deputate was 
changed to DCS/Plans, Policy, Programs, and Requirements. Also 
at that time, the Directorate of Manpower and Organization 
transferred to DCS/Personnel (J-l). J-S was reduced 26 percent 
in personnel manning from June to December 1979.207 

Manning on 30 June 1979 
Officers Airmen Civilians 

Manning on 31 December 1979 

ADC authorized manning .for the deputate was 106 Air Force 
and 19 JTD spaces. The J-5 function in ADCOS was authorized 
9 positions. (See Authorized Manning Chart,} 

DCS/Communications Electronics and Computer Re- 
sources (J-6) continued with four directorates, but the ti- 
tle of the Directorate of Regional Computer Center was 
changed to the Directorate of Automated Data Processing (ADP) 
Systems. On 1 November 1979, J-6 assumed new organizational 
functions and responsibilities for supporting NORM/ADCOM 
communications and ADP operational requirements; insuring 
C1NCNORAD could exercise end-to-end operational conf igura- , 
tion control ■of-coBBunications,"electronics7*'and''ADP in the 
sensors, the connecting communications, the NCMC, and con- 
nections with forward users; and establishing an interface to 
assure responsive SAC, TAC, and AFCS support of CINCNORAD/ 
CINCAD operational requirements, and to insure CINCNORAD/ 
CINCAD retained full configuration management and control of 
all operations within the NCMC/ 08 

On 1 October 1979, J-6 turned over ADP management 
responsibility to SAC together with those personnel having 
project management responsibilities. TAC assumed ADP and com- 
munications management responsibilities related to atmos- 
pheric defense and a number of personnel were transferred to 
TAC. AFCS established a dual -hatted Deputy Commander for 
Strategic Defensive Systems/Strategic Communications Area 
who also served as the ADC/KRC.209 

J-6 gained 21 percent in assigned personnel from 
June to December. On 3D June 1979, 283 personnel (83 offi- 
cers, 113 airmen,, and 87 civilians) were assigned; on 31 Dec- 
ember 1979, 343 personnel (135 officers, 105 airmen, and 103 
civilians) were assigned. 210 ADC authorized manning for J-6 
was 21 Air Force and 9 JTD spaces. The J-6 function was 
authorized 281 spaces in ADCOS. (See authorised Manning 

The DCS/Comptroller was substantially reduced as a 
result of the reorganization. The functions of the Directo- 
rate of Accounting and finance were eliminated on 1 October 
1979 and the Assistant for Systems and Plans on 1 December 
1979. This left two directorates: Budget and Management 
Analysis. DCS/Comptroller lost 45 (80 percent) of its as- 
signed personnel: On 30 June 1979, 14 officers, 12 airmen, 
and 30 civilians were assigned; by 31 December 1979, 5 of- 
ficers (1 Col, 2 Lt Cols, and 2 Capts), 1 airman (E-8), and 
S civilians (1 GS-13, 2 GS-12s, 1 GS-9, and 1 GS-S) were as- 
signed. 211 The ADC authorized manning was the same as Ue 
assigned spaces. 

I On 1 October 1979, USAF redesignated the informa- 
tion function as Public Affairs, and responsibility for the ' 
public affairs of former ADCOM units was transferred to TAC 
on that date. The directorate assumed responsibility for 
Public Affairs for the Aerospace Defense Center on 1 Decem- 
ber 1979, concurrent with transferring to SAC responsibility 
for the public affairs of the units it gained on that date. 
Difficulties were encountered in maintaining a full scope of 
activities to support CINCNORAD after a staff reduction of 
44 percent. The directorate attempted to cope with the prob- 
lem by using overage military personnel wording outside 
their AFSC's and a civilian overhire. Eighteen personnel 
were assigned on 30 June 1979: 7 officers, 4 airmen, and 7 
civilians; on 31,December>1979, 40 personnel were assigned:'- - 
3' officers, 2 airmen, and 5 civilians, 212 The directorate's 
authorised ADC manning was 9 Air Force and 2 JTD spaces. 

The' Judge Advocate function became a part of the 
ADC staff on 1 December 1979. The function was reduced 20 
percent (from three to two divisions), and from 10 personnel 
assigned (4 officers, 2 airmen, and 4 civilians on 30 June) , 
to 8 personnel assigned on 31 December (3 officers, 1 airman, 
and 4 civilians). 213 The Judge Advocate's authorized ADC 
manning was 5 Air Force spaces (3 officers, 1 airman, and 1 

The 'Directorate of Administration continued with,,, 
two divisions 1 , but lost six of its seven branches and 82 per- 
cent of its assigned personnel. The Word Processing Center 
was discontinued on 1, October 1979. The Printing Plant and 
the Publishing and Forms Distribution Office transferred to 
SAC's 46th Aerospace Defense Wing on the same date. The 
Forms Management section was also discontinued on 1 October. 
A total of 60 personnel (1 officer, 8 airmen, 27 DAFC, and 
24 WB civilians) were assigned on 30 June 1979, but by 
31 December 1979, there were only 11 personnel assigned (2 
officers, 3 airmen, and 6 civilians). 214 ADC authorized Hum- 
ming for the directorate was 10 Air Force and 1 JTD spaces. 

. With the transfer of former ADCOM units to TAC and 
AFCS on 1 October, and SAC, on 1 December, the Inspector Gen- 
eral no longer had responsibility for the inspection of those 
units. The NORAD/ADCOM (specified)MDC IG continued to per- 
form the scheduling and budget function for ADTAC./IG and to 
augment the ADTAC/IG on inspection trips as required through 
the end of the year. The IG retained responsibility fir op- 
erational evaluation of units gained by TAC and SAC. Lie IG 
had 109 personnel assigned (44 officers, 6D airmen, and 5 
civilians) on 30 June 1979. By 31 December, it had been re- 
duced 76 percent to 26 assigned personnel (IS officers, 8 air- 
men, and 3 civilians). 2 ^ Authorized manning was 3 Air Force 
and 2 JTD spaces in the headquarters; 30 more spaces were 
authorized the IG function in the ADCOS. 

The office of the Chief of Safety was assigned 17 
personnel (7 officers, 4 airmen, and 6 civilians) on 30 June 
1979. Safety was realigned under ADTAC on 1 October 1979. 
ADC had no resource management responsibility and thus no 
Safety function. Fourteen personnel were reassigned from 
ADCOM to TAC on ! October, 5 officers, 3 airmen, and 6 civil- 
ians. 2W 

The Command Surgeon was assigned 15 personnel (S of- 
ficers, 7 airmen, and 3 civilians) on 30 June 1979. ADCOH 
medical facilities were transferred to TAC on I October and 
to SAC on i December 1979, and the office of the ADCOM Sur- 
geon was discontinued.^' 

The Command Chaplain was assigned 7 personnel (2 of- 
ficers, 4 airmen, and 1 civilian) on 30 June 1979. 218 The 
ADCOM Command Chaplain function was discontinued on 15 Octo- 
ber 1979.219 

The Director of Security was reduced on 1 December 
1979 from three divisions and 15 assigned personnel (S offi- 
cers, 7 -airmen, and 3 civilians) to a single entity, the 
Directorate of Security, with two positions: Lt Col (0-5) 
and MSgt (E-7). The functions were reduced to managing the 
security for Headquarters NORAD/APC and the Security Police 
function at the (CMC and providing liaison with the gaining 
commands to assure optimal security for CINCNORAD's opera- 
tional forces. - ?u The directorate was authorized 2 Air Force 
spaces in ADCOS. 

As a result of the reorganization, the Office of 
History was reduced 50 percent, from four civilian spaces to 
two. Authorized ADC manning for the Office of History was 
two Air Force spaces. 

Effective 1 December 1979, the DCS/Engineering and 
Services was disestablished and the entire staff of 87 (9 of- 
ficers, 11 airmen, and 67 civilians) reassigned elsewhere, 2 ^ 
Major command engineering responsibility for all of the TAC- 
gained units (those with an atmospheric defense mission) was 
transferred to Headquarters TAC. Major command engineering 
responsibility for SAC-gained units (those with missile warn- 
ing and space surveillance missions) was transferred to SAC. 
Major command engineering responsibility for the NORAD Combat 
Operations Center remained vested in the Aerospace Defense 
Center (ADC). 222 

The Director of Civil Engineering (0-6) with a small 
staff was established under DCS/Logistics (J-4) on 1 December 
1979. Their responsibilities included: 223 

a. Performing MAJCCM functions for civil engineer input 
on programs for modifications to existing systems and the con- 
struction of new systems or facilities to support the NORAD 
mission. Although the responsibility for these systems rested 
with SAC and TAC, the NORAD staff reviewed the programming, 
assisted in the advocacy role, and followed the design to as- 
sure that the civil engineering requirements as perceived by 
NORAD were included in .the design and construction. 

Battle Staff support to 

c. Maintaining liaison with major command/Director cf 
Engineering supporting NORAD units. 

d. The NORAD office symbol was N0RAD/J-4C; the ADC of- 
fice symbol was ADC/LGD. 

Civilian Personnel 

The ADCOM reorganization showed a net civilian man- 
power savings in the USAF Greenbook, January 1978, of 443 
personnel. This figure was revised to 3S6 in May 1979, and to 
261 in July 1979, ■ The ADCOM Director of Civilian Personnel, 
Mr. Charles I. Shinn, began extensive planning early in 1979 
for civilian personnel transfers and reduction in force (RIF) 
expected to ensue as.a result of the reorganization. Other 
military agencies in the area, such as the Air Force Academy 
and Fort Carson, were contacted, and they agreed to place a 
hiring freeze on permanent employment until ADCOM identified 
its RIF'd civilian employees. Coordination was effected also 
with the Office of Personnel Management in Denver. That of- 
fice agreed to contact all Federal agencies in its area to 
ask for cooperation in placing RIF'd employees. The State 

Employment Commission also agreed to identify potential job 
markets for ADCOM employees affected. (This action did not 
become necessary.) The staff of the Directorate of Civilian 
Personnel developed and published a step-by-step plan of action 
in April 1979 which served as a Guide and Checklist for Trans- 
fer of Function and Reduction-in-Force actions, 224 Mr. Shinn 
was able to learn much from the personnel difficulties encoun- 
tered by AFCS during its transfer from Richards -Gebaur AFB to 
Scott AFB several years before. 

The first group counseling of civilians on the re- 
organization as it affected the headquarters was held in the 
auditorium of the Chidlaw Building, at Cheyenne Mountain Com- 
plex, and Peterson AFB on 19 April 1979. An informative book- 
let, "Procedures for Functional Transfer of Civilian Employ- 
ees," was handed out which explained various subjects in plan- 
ning and executing a functional transfer. Personnel were in- 
vited to ask questions at the end of th'e session. Another 
group counseling meeting was held on 20 September 1979.22S 
Representatives of BOD, USAF, SAC, TAC, and AFCS were at this 
meeting to answer questions. In late November 1979, individ- 
ual personnel counseling was offered to interested personnel 
by appointment. Mr. Shinn and his assistant counseled 80 
personnel during these sessions. In the meantime, the Director 
of Civilian Personnel made his staff available for walk-in 
counseling. Mr. Shinn said that all but one personnel griev- 
ance was resolved in individual personnel counseling before 
they grew into serious problems. In the one instance, he 
called a disgruntled individual who had written to a Congress- 
man about the way the reorganization was handled by the Civil- 
ian Personnel Office, and after a personal' counseling session, 
the employee understood the situation and was satisfied with 
personnel actions which affected her. 22 *" 

.. HQ ADCOM began reorganization effective 1 
1979."'. The Director of Civilian Personnel, Peterson AFB, 
CO, delivered a Preliminary Offer of Transfer of Function 
letter to 1S1 civilian employees on 4 September 1979 to trans- 
fer to TAC and 113 accepted the offer; SO employees were of- 
fered transfer to SAC and 40 accepted; and all 5 employees 
offered transfer to AFCS accepted. 228 (The Preliminary Offer 
letter was merely a survey to identify those employees who 
wished to transfer with their functions and those who, under 
no circumstances, would transfer. }229 Letters of Specific 
Transfer of Function Offers to TAC were delivered to 80 em- 
ployees on 1 November 1979 and 42 accepted; 28 employees were 
given specific offers to transfer to SAC and 11 accepted; and 
2 employees were offered transfers to AFCS and none accepted. 230 
(The Specific Offer could be changed, but only for a better 
offer,) Employees were scheduled to be transferred to TAC, 

SAC, AFCC, and ADC en 11 January 1980.231 Approximately 25 
employees of the 42 accepting transfer to TAC (assigned to 
ADTAC) were scheduled to transfer about April 1981.232 

A total of 152 employees received Reduction in 
Force (RIF) letters on 1 November 1979.233 Of that number, 
110 were reassigned laterally, 39 were downgraded with saved 
pay, and 3 were separated from Civil Service to accept a 
better offer. Civilian employees who elected to retire due 
to the reorganisation totaled 125; 49 voluntary retirements, 
44 early optional, 25 tiiscontinued service, and 7 on dis- 

The delay in accomplishment of the reorganization^ 
caused by the civilian suit brought against the Government, 
prolonged the unsettled condition of civilian employees and 
aggravated manning shortages. Many were long-tine employees 
of the command and had deep roots iir Colorado Springs. A 
high percentage ware former military personnel who had re- 
tired and moved here because it was the geographical area of 
their choice. They were not dependent upon their civilian 
income alone. Over one-half the headquarters civilian work 
force was eligible for some kind of retirement. Many ac- 
cepted the preliminary offer, and even the specific offer, 
with the intention of turning the job down in the end if some- 
thing more attractive came up in the meantime. Many senior 
people, not wishing to move from the area, looked to retire- 
ment or employment with another Federal agency in the area. 
Employees with little seniority and facing RIF action, looked 
also to other employment either in the Federal or civilian 
sector. Efforts to provide opportunities for employees (a 
civilian hiring freeze at Peterson AFB from April 1979 to 
11 January 1980 to create positions for those affected and the 
priority given to hiring ADCOM employees by the Air Force 
Academy and Fort Carson) were perhaps too successful. About 
75 experienced personnel (ranging from clerks and secretaries 
to highly qualified engineers} accepted jobs at AFA and Fort 
Carson rather than transfer to SAC or TAC or wait for the 
possibility, that a NORAD/A0C position would be offered. AD- 
COM, therefore, suffered a loss of expertise froa which it 
would take years to recover, 234 

Looking back over 1979, Mr. Shinn said some mis- 
takes were made in civilian personnel actions because of in- 
experience: this was the first time some civilian personnel 
specialists had handled a reorganization of a ntajor command 
split in so many different ways. But he emphasized that keep- 
ing all employees informed of both positive and negative as- 
pects of the situation did more than anything else to gain 
positive support from civil' 

In summary, the revised Greenbook civilian manpower 
savings of the ADCOM reorganization was planned to be 261. 
More than that was actually saved: 42 accepted transfer to 
TAC, 11 to SAC, 7S personnel transferred to AFA and Fort Car- 
son, 3 separated, 125 retired, and 110 were reassigned later- 
ally, making a total of 366, This left NORAD/ADC at the end 
of 1979 with vacancies to fill, 

Officer Grade Reductions 

In December 1978, HQ USAF imposed a reduction in of- 
ficer grades upon ADCOM for FY 79, the most serious of which 
were reduction of 5 colonel authorizations to lieutenant colo- 
nel and 23S captain authorizations to lieutenant. 23 " 

Every effort was raade to minimise the downgrading 
of captain authorizations in active operational units. To 
this end, candidates for reduction were selected from radar 
squadrons afld other units which were programmed to inactivate 
in FY 79 or FY 80, thereby a minimal personnel impact and 
less grade constraints would be experienced by remaining op- 
erational units. One-third of the grade reductions were made 
at Kingsley Field, OR; the 17th Defense System Evaluation 
Squadron, Mains trom AFB, bff; and short-term radar squadrons. 
Based on future operational requirements, SO captain (Air 
Weapons Controller, AFSC 1744} authorizations were reduced to 
lieutenants. The remaining 109 captain authorizations re- 
duced to lieutenant were in the field and in HQ ADCOM."' 

The five colonel authorisations downgraded to lieu- 
tenant colonel were: Commander, Kingsley Field, OR; Director 
of Engineering and Construction, DCS/ Engineering and Services, 
ADCOM; Director of Logistics, 20th Air Division; Director of 
logistics, 24th Air Division; and Commander, 1/th Defense Sys- 
tem Evaluation Squadron. 238 

. .. On 15 March 1979,,' Lieutenant General B.L. Davis, DCS/ 
Manpower and Personnel, HQ USAF, wrote to General Hill, CINC- 
NORAD, expressing concern over the number of general officer 
authorisations" Congress was pressuring the military services 
to reduce and proposed a drawdown of generals after the ADCOM 
reorganization. General Hill replied on 5 April 1979: °* 

Retention of the joint staff general officers 
is essential to preserving the integrity and 
influence of. the NORAD and ADCOM operational 
missions in the post reorganization environ- 
ment. It will be critically important, par- 
ticularly during the early days of the reor- 
ganization, that clear, usable, and effective 

channels be maintained into equivalent staff 
functions of SAC, TAG, and AFCS,... Moreover, 
USAF must honor the commitment to allies that 
there be no degradation of mission or responsi- 
bilities for ADCOM assets to SAC and TAC. 
There is inherent risk of an allied preception 
of a breach of faith by the USAF if general of- 
ficer positions are downgraded that retain re- 
sponsibility for operational control of NORAD 
assets. This risk may prove to be unacceptable, 

USAF directed ADCOM to conduct an annual review of 
general officer manning by 15 June 1979 and reduce its gen- 
eral officer strength for FY 80 by one general officer manned 
position. The Brigadier General position in DCS/ Intelligence 
(J-2) was selected for manning by an 0-6.240 

C1NCAD received a, joint message, on 19 Sep- 
tember 1979, from the Secretary of State to the American Em- 
bassy in Ottawa which announced that USAF planned to redesig- 
nate the NORAD/ADCQM command position to a three-star billet 
on 31 December 1979. This plan was based on manpower consid- 
erations made necessary by a Congressional mandate to reduce 
general officer strength in Fiscal Year 1978.2*1 

U.S. Araj Manpower__Resour_ce^_in_OTRAD 

Following public announcement of the ADCOM reor- 
ganization proposal and withdrawal of Array Air Defense Artil- 
lery (ADA) resources from NORAD on 9 April 1979,* NORAD ex- 
amined Army resources in each region and; the headquarters 
staff regarding their future mission essentiality. The FY 
80 NORAD/ADCOM Joint Manpower Program {JMP), I October 1978^ 
had been approved by JCS on 26 March 1979, which reflected 
authorizations for FY 80 and requirements for FY 81 through 
FY 84. JCS lag time in approving any change from one service 
to another in the JMP was one year. As a result of the re- 
view, an out-of-cvcle change to the NORAD Joint Manpower 
Program [JMP) was' submitted to the JCS on 14 August 1979. 
The JMP reflected a net NORAD reduction of 11 Army spaces. 
After the ADCOM reorganization, 14 additional Army spaces in 
the regions were to be converted to USAF spaces, amounting to 
a total Army reduction of 36 spaces, 242 

Increased Manning for E-3A and S?ADOC 


On 14 May 1979, ADCOM requested that USAF increase 
NGRAD manning for mission crews (16 officers and 16 airmen 
spaces) , standardization and evaluation requirements (1 of- 
ficer and 1 airman spaces), command post augmentation (1 air- 
man space), and administrative augmentation (1 airiaan space). 
With the exception of the administrative augmentation, USAF 
approved manpower requirements on 30 July 1979 for 17 officers 
and 18 airmen in the FY 81 Budget submission. 244 

In June 1979, USAF authorized 25 manpower spaces to 
NORAD/ADCOM for the Space Defense Operations Center as it was 
directly tied to the Anti-Satellite System (ASAT). All spaces 
were to be carried in a new functional account code titled 

Air i Weapons Controller Manning 

Air force wide problems of low manning and experi- 
ence levels of Air Weapons Controllers (AWCs) [AFSC 17XX) 
were particularly, severe in ADCOM. Overseas users of AWCs 
required assignment of experienced personnel, and this kept 
ADCOM ' s experience level low; and priority manning was given 
to a new tactical control group in Germany and the E-3A 
AWACS. HQ USAF had long recognized the poor retention rate 
and low manning within the Air Weapons Controller career 
field and had held several symposia to consider the problem. 
In a symposium in May 1977, a master plan called the "USAF 
17XX Management Plan" was initiated which promised to be the 
long sought-after solution to ACCOM's problems. The master 

plan called for increasing the number of prior experience of- 
ficers returning to the field and improving basic AWC train- 
ing so that new accessions could be employed overseas direct- 
ly from basic weapons controller training. 

In FY 77, and several years preceding that year, 
the requirement was 240 personnel allotted to training as Air 
Weapons Controllers. By FY 78, the trained personnel re- 
quirement (TPR) increased to 310 ne» 17XXs, and 30 prior ex- 
perience officers returned to the career field. FY 79 ac- 
cessions increased to 434 new 17XXs, plus 30 prior experience 
AWCs: 52 went to overseas short tours, 153 to United States 
Air Forces Europe and Tactical Air Command control units, 44 
to Airborne Warning and Control System, and 185 to ADCOM. 246 

To improve Air Weapons Controller training, the Air 
Training Command initiated a manual control system qualifica- 
tion training (SQT) course at TvndaU AFB, FL, on 27 Febru- 
ary 1978. All subsequent graduates' to this course went direct- 
ly < 

January 1979 marked the low ooint in both manning 
(75 percent) and experience level in AFSC 17XX, but by 1 Sep- 
tember ADCOM air divisions had reached 83 percent manning. 
By March 1980, ADCOM was projected to be approximately 100 
percent manned in the Air I'/eapons Controller (AFSC 17.XX) 
career field. 24? 

In November 1978, CSAF had notified all major com- 
mands that no additional funds would be' forthcoming, and the 
commands would have to live .within the levels provided. At 
that time, the total ADCOM Operations and Maintenance Program 
alone totaled $355 million. 248 

In FY 79, as in the two preceding years, by applying 
very stringent budget practices and deferring to FY 80 any 
programs not absolutely essential to the mission, ADCOM stay- 
ed within its-budget of $372 million as of 30 September 1979. 

Over 47 percent of the ADCOM Budget ($177.2 million) 
was obligated to contracts. Other major expenditures were 
$74 million for civilian pay and a like amount for supplies. 
Many of the supplies were purchased during the last month of 
the fiscal year, at which time ADCOM replenished depleted 
stock levels in all areas including fuels. 

During the last five weeks of the fiscal year, al- 
most $6 million of supplemental funding was provided by USAF. 

This included $188,000 to cover flying hour supplies for the 
F-4 aircraft in Iceland, and 545,000 to continue the AtfACS 
Operations Analysis Study. USAF provided another $1.8 mil- 
lion during the last week of the fiscal year, which was used 
primarily to purchase asphalt for repair of the runway and 
ramp at Sondrestrom AB, Greenland. 2 ^ 

All major programs were funded during the fiscal 
year. These included the entire ADCOM flying hour program, 
civilian pay, utilities and fuels, and repair of the roofs of 
the Thule BMEWS buildings which ADCOM had attempted to fund 
for the past three years. Not only were the materials pur- 
chased in FY 79 for the project, but also a contract was let 
for the work. Over $2.1 million in facility projects were 
funded. The replacement of bladder fuel tsnks at DEW Line 
sites with metal tanks continued. This was expected to help 
eliminate the problem of fuel leakage. Water pipe was also 
purchased to replace deteriorated pipe on the DEW Line. A 
major unfunded project for the past three years had been re- 
pair of the Sondrestrom runway. Almost $2.8 million of the 
S6 million supplemental purchased asphalt for the project. 
Finally, tubes and other electronic supplies were purchased to 
support BMEWS and the DEW Line. This was significant because 
many of the components would soon be out of production, and 
these purchases insured future operations. 

In Dlanning for the reorganization of the Aerospace 
Defense Command, the DCS/Comptroller, Colonel L. R, Ravetti, 
proposed reorganization actions (unit transfers and closures, 
and MAJCQM changes) coincide vith the end .'of the fiscal year. 
Other HAJCOM Comptrollers concerned concurred in the recom- 
mendation, but it was not adopted, To insure equitable fi- 
nancing for all of the ADCOM units to be gained by other com- 
mands during FY 79, the ADCOM Comptroller retained control of 
all FY 79 budgeting and accounting for ADCOM units transfer- 
ring tO' other commands until 15 November 1979. This situation 
whereby for a short time financial resources remained with 
ADCOM, but all other responsibilities transferred to other 
major commands proved awkward and tended to undermine resource 
management. ^Sp- 
in summary, ADCOM was able to fund all mission- 
essential items in FY 79. The original deficit, however, was 
over $39 million. With $1? million provided by USAF, this 
left $22 million, of requirements not funded. Many of these 
were important programs and projects that had to be delayed or 
cancelled due to lack of funds.- 51 

Funding responsibility for FY 80 was transferred to 
the gaining commands-'SAC, TAC, and AFCS--on 1 October 1979, 
After USAP allocation of the FY 80 budget to the gaining 

commands and ADC, there was a remaining deficit of almost $55 
million, excluding the withholds which were funds USAF identi- 
fied but held back until the command proved they were need- 
As was usually the case, the unfunded programs were 
in Major Force Programs (MFP) I (Strategic Forces) and II 
(General Purpose Forces). The 5750,000 unfunded in MFP II 
consisted primarily of 5724,000 to continue AWACS Operational 
Analysis study. The remaining 526,000 affected F-4 aircraft 
supplies. The largest deficit was in MFP I, $59.6 million. 
Subtracting the withholds (55.5 million), the remaining defi- 
cit was $54,9 million (about $20 million for SAC, $20 million 
for TAC, and $15 million for ADC). 2 " 

The FY 80 ADC and ADCOM Operations Operating Budgets, 
as estimated at the end of the calendar year, are shown on the 
following page. 

(in millions) 

Major Force Program FY 78 FY 79 FY 80 (Est) 

I Strategic Forces $323,961 $353,866 $32,263 


VIIIA Training and Other 
General Personnel 

VIIIB Medical Programs 

IX Administration and 
Associated Acti- 

TOTAL $345,014 $372,508 $33,987 

~$6TJKE: Data furnished by Maj F. E. Byford, ACB, 25 Mar 
0; and Operating Budget Authority by Major Force Program, 
of Budget, HQ USAF, for FY 78 and FY 79, 




The Ballistic Missile Surveillance and Warning 
System consisted of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning 
System (BMEWS) ; the Sea-launched Ballistic Missile Detec- 
tion and Warning System (SLBM D5W) ; the Perimeter 
Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization Systei (PARCS); 
the Defense Support Program (DSP); and contributing sensors 
froi the Space Detection and Tracking Systei (SPADATS) , 
Information gathered by these systems was transmitted to 
the Missile Warning and Display System in the Missile 
Warning Center of the NORAD Cheyenne Mountain Complex. 
There, attack characterization and assessment was made to 
determine the potential of a ballistic missile attack 
upon the U.S. and Canada and the information transmitted 
to the' National' Command Authority. 

The 9 November Incident 

For about three minutes on the 
morning of 9 November 1979 a test scenario of a missile 
attack on North Aierica was, through a combination of 
anomalies and coincidences, transmitted from a test 
device (a Message Generator Recorder or MG/R) to the op- 
erations side of the 427M computer system in the Cheyenne 
Moujitain_Combat_Operations Center] ~ ^ 



[U) The 9 November incident prompted considerable 
interest on the cart of the press,' within the Congress, 
and at HQ USAF, the JCS, and OSD. In response to a number 
of inquiries about the brief alert, the OSD released details 
to the press. Air Force, JCS, and OSD officials visited 
MORAD soon after the event for briefings. The JCS produced 
a number of action items or directions for corrective action. 
As was routine for such an event, NORAD established an 
Operations Review Board (ORB) on 12 November. In late Nov- 
ember, General Allen directed the Air Force Inspector General 
to visit the Cheyenne Mountain Complex to look at the ABCOM 
reorganization and the 9 November event. 

Press comment stimulated by the OSD 
news release evidenced concern about the general health of 
the air defense system, 3 but with the OSD announcement late 
in the month that the problem had been solved, interest 
wanned.' Briefings to Congressional members and their staffs 
carried through this theme: some weakness had been discov- 
ered in the system, which were being corrected, but it was 
fundamentally sound. The incident had reinforced the belief 
that the system must have redundancies built in and that 
human judgment played a crucial role in such circumstances. 
The "five minutes" reported in the press had been spent con- 
firming beyond doubt that it was false, but in the meantime 
certain precautionary measures had been taken. 5 


At the end of 1979 the inter-'"";- 
nal NORAD Operations Review Board investigation contin- 
ued, and the USA? IG inspection was underway. Many of 
the more obvious and quickly accomplished fixes and 
procedural changes had been made, and increased empha- 
sis had been given to training. 50 Systems improvements 
would tafce longer and involve considerable expense. Af- 
ter the fact, NORAD officers recalled that in 1974 the 
command had recognized the potential hazards involved 
in continuing to develop the 427M system while at the 
same time it was in operation, and had requested a fourth 
computer for testing. Lack of funds prevented its ac- No w they settled on a testing moritorium 
in the near term while preparing plans to remove such 
activity from the Mountain altogether. Prom the NORAD 
perspective, also, it seemed the attention it received 
after 9 November had at least one positive aspect in 
that senior Washington officials were taking increased 
interest in and gaining a greater understanding of the 
command, its systems, and problems. 

B allistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEKS ) 

In December 1978 Generals Hill and Slay 
had agreed that it was critical that the BHEWS IBM 7090 
computers be replaced. ADCOM wanted the new computers to 
have the growth potential to accommodate future BMEWS 
modernization. HQ AFSC said that since it lacked full 
definition of the threat scenario for 1985, it could not 
fully define hardware, requirements to be' sen.t to con- 
tractors in bid solicitations. It therefore recommended 
an interim system which would provide a capability equiv- 
alent to the present 7090. More time would then be 
available to build a new system around a more completely 
defined threat, 13 ADCOM replied that recent evidence 
indicated that BMEWS computers were deteriorating more 
rapidly than expected and that the rate of deterioration 
had increased. .* Since it might not be feasible to provide 
final computer hardware in 1981, the command found the 
interim ADP hardware option "acceptable," But regard- 
less of the approach taken on the computers (interim ADP 
or direct to a final system), ADCOM wanted upgrade of the 
radars to proceed without interruption, with a goal of 
completing the Thule and Clear sites in FY-83,14 In a 
26 April 1979 meeting, Air Staff, AFSC, ADCOM, and BSD 
representatives agreed on a course of action to replace 

the computers at Thule and Clear by the end of 1981 
and at Fylingdales six months later. The computers to 
be purchased vould be compatible with the current BMEWS 
radars and have the growth potential to support the later 
upgrade program. BSD then looked to March 1980 as the 
contract date for replacement of the 7090 computers. 15 
This planning was substantiated in a new Program Manage- 
ment Directive issued in July. It also called for up- 
grade of the BMEWS radars not later than the fourth 
quarter of FY-85 either by modernization or replacement. 
Funding of this wor& had been held up by OSD, however, 
pending results of a study which would examine the rela- 
tive merits of upgrading BMEWS and replacing all or some 
of the BMEWS radars with phased array radars. 16 

, In late December 1978, Dr. Gerald P. 
Dinneen, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, 
Communications, and Intelligence) ,' encouraged by a Ray- 
theon Corporation proposal for replacing BMEWS radars 
with phased array radars, tasked the Air Force to examine 
the option. ADCOM made its own evaluation of the Ray- 
theon proposal and found each site would cost not $88 
million, as stated by Raytheon, but $150 million. The 
difference seemed to be that Raytheon had not counted in 
all the additional costs peculiar to arctic construction 
nor all the costs of spares, training, contractor profit, 
etc., which would be costs to the government.!' j p early 
1979 ADCOM provided Operations and Maintenance (QfiM) cost 
estimates and a threat coverage analysis to the Air Staff 
study, and by the end of April ESD had. completed its 
examination of cost estimates;! 8 

1. The initial cost for a phased array radar 
at Thule ilone was much greater than BMEWS modern- 
ization for all BMEWS sites. 

■ 2, With the 'phased array adequate threat coverage 
was possible, but it presented greater technical risk 
and a, later Initial Operational Capability (IOC) date 
than BMEWS modernization. 

3.. About a 24 percent reduction in OIJM co&ts 
would be realized using an upgraded PAVE PAWS phased 

In his quarterly letter to the Secretary of Defense in mid- 
July General Hill expressed concern that the upgrade of 

detection and tracking radars "... appears to continue to 
lead a precarious life." It had suffered more twists and 
turns in the budget process than CINCNORAD could keep track 
of and was again in trouble because debate over which was 
better, phased array or modernised BMEWS , had been prolonged 
despite conclusions of an Air Force study that upgrading the 
present radars was best. 19 In a letter to Dr. Dinneen later in 
July, Generaljill .compared the two ootions. 

^,... , f-Eeneral"HIH~s"8Td modernization ms'tSe preferred 

r option because it would be available earlier than phased array 
and would be cheaper. 2 ^ 

The OSD's protracted examination of 
the phased array alternative to BMEWS aodernkation had the 
effect of delaying funding for the radar upgrade. 21 Funding 
of the Missile Impact Predictor upgrade (including computers) 
remained on schedule, however, anticipating contract award 
in March 1980, until early September. OSD then deferred all 
$9 million in FY SO R§D funds for BMEWS, and this included 
S3. 9 million needed for the HIP upgrade. 22 .In response to Air 
Force expressions of concern, Dr. Dinneen restored the funds 
on IS October, but also said the cost was too high (nearly 
$40 million), and steps w;ould be taken to reduce that amount 
by at least $10 million. 23 A month later, Hq USAF reported 
OSD had agreed that the Air Force could proceed with upgrade 
of the Thule detection radar. 24 It was a beginning, but fund- 
ing problems persisted. In December the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and the House Appropriations Committee jointly 
agreed to delete .-the .$9 million, which again included $5.9 
million for the replacement contract. The Congres- 
sional committees reportedly would consider BMEWS improvements 
as part of a la-rger Missile Warning Master Plan only after a 
report it had requested from the DOD had been submitted, one 
which at the end of the year was overdue. This delay carried 
the potential of six months to a year slip in the progran if 
the contract could not be let in March. The hope was that 
the computer replacement program could be detached irom the 

Master Plan, and it was to that end the Air Force was working 
at the end of the year, 2S Major General W, C. Moore, VCINCAD, 
noted in a letter to Hq USAF/PA in December that sensor__ -- . 
improvements designed to lead ADCOMr"" 


' Sea Launched Ballistic Missile Detection and Warning (SLBMD5H) 
System " " _~ mm ™~~™™ 

,. . . ., The SIBMD5W System consisted of six AN/ 
FSS-7 radars and one AJJ/FPS-85 phased array radar located 
on the East, West, and Gulf Coasts of the United States. The 
three West Coast sites were at Mt Hebo, OR; Mt Laguna, CA; 
and Mill Valley, CA. The two on the East Coast were at 
Fort Fisher, NC; and Charleston, ME. ' The Gulf Coast radar 
was at HacDill AFB, FL. TheJWFK^SjasJocated at F-glin 
j^jj u _2liO_QB_tle_Gul£ • ,' ' 


The FSS-7s, or Fuzzy-7s as they were not v 
always affectionately called, had begun operations on an 
interira basis in July 1970, had reached Interim Operational 
Capability (IOC) on S May 1972, but because of inherent sys- 
tem deficiencies, had never officially reached Final Opera- 
tional Capability (FOC). The radars were- a modification of 
the FPS-26 height-finder radar used for aircraft detection 
and required a great deal of logistical and maintenance 
attention to keep then at a reasonably high level of opera- 
tional availability. Constant attention increased the sys- 
tem's availability from about SO percent early in its opera- 
tional .life to about 85 percent more recently, but the 
inherent deficiencies remained. Also, the FSS-7 was not 
capable of detecting sojne of the trajectories in which the 
Soviets might fire their SS-6 SLBMS^and it would miss al- - 
together most-SSN-8 trajectories. 


The effectiveness of the ground-based 
segment of the SLBMDSW system would be substantially im- 
proved with the acquisition of tiro dual-faced AN/FPS-11S 
phased array radars (acronym PAVE PAWS) . ADCOM wanted 
four sites, but by the end of 1979 only two had been 
funded, one for each coast to cover known threat areas. 
Planning for PAVE PAWS was completed in the middle 1970s, 
and although funding was delayed, beginning in FY-75 
Congress provided $47.7 million of a total estimated $126 
million for sites at Otis AFB, HA, and Beale AFB, CA. 
Raytheon Corporation's Equipment Division was the prime 
contractor and IBM developed the software. Planning 
called forjthe Otis site to be completed' in 36 months and 
l; the :Beale*site4n ,48 months. .Design and site investi- 
ftgati'on'-Mastcompleted'for Site.-I in April 1976 and Site II 
£' inlNovemberSMhat year^'Site'preparation at Otis began 
I' in Novembeffl976 .and at Beale in March 1977., At the end 
I, of 1978'cqnstruction'was on schedule. It was then ex- 
? : pected .thalJOtis Would .achieve Initial Operational Capa- 
'"biIitjf_(IOC};;in' April 1979 and Beale a year, later. After 
■a period of 'operating the Otis site in conjunction with, 
the FSSt7 sites, ADCOM planned to close the East Coast . 
sites in June. 27* 

, r , .r^In'searly 'January 1979 Air Force Systems Command's 
AElectroiidSysteJaJlirtsion began the^O-dayaMiability', 
t^atSfiaraity^^aS Availability (RM£,A) phase of the 
.DeyeloDnenKTest 'and Evaluation (DT§E) checkout of the 
'Otis PAVE PAWS technical facility. Members of ABCOM's ■.. 
6th Missile Warning Squadron (MWS), activated the pre- 
vious October, worked alongside BSD personnel and the 
contractor to gain experience in what would be their 
future operational duties.' For the next two months, 
• until the test was completed on 25 February, the system 
was available 98.7 percent of the time (57 failures which 
actually occurred or were intentionally injected into the 
system' were corrected within the three hour time limit 
allowed). This completed the DT§E portion of the system's 
progression .operational status. The next phase, a 
60-day Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTSE), 
began 6 March. For the first month the Air Force would 
operate the system 12 .hours a day and the contractor 

*The FSS-7 at MacDill AFB would be retained until a 
new southeast PAVE PAWS site, planned but not yet 
became operational. 

would use the other 12 to clean up discrepancies. Plans 
called for the Air Force to accept the Otis site from the 
contractor on or about 13 April. Thereafter, the 6 MKS 
would operate the systei 24 hours a day, and if operation 
at near or full power for an extended period confirmed 
design specifications and capabilities, the Air Force 
planned to declare it operational in June. 28 

... ESD's Program Office accepted 
delivery of the site on 12 April, with the provision that 
remaining deficiencies would be cleaned up by the con-, 
tractor."' I0I5E was completed 21 May, 30 but contractor, 
efforts to correct outstanding anomalies discovered dur- 
ing that time continued into early July. The turnover ,, 
... date to^ADCOM remainedjunconfirmed; andiasja^esultitte-t^j 
• two EastiiCoast >FSS-7<sites continueiMpsiiitiaiisJiejani •ri'[,B 
' their "|l£med_Jun£closure date. J " ~* x '~ * • 

'.■'. 'fey.' . M[$\. ■■■"■ ; V ~iM^'-M^' : ^M 

:.'-'"' ' AICOM now looked to 1 -'August^ 
as . the.<date r Tf vrouldiaciiuire the^OtistSacilityr.couience' '""- • ';. 
dual :opffa'tiansjiJ|te!flie JSS-J^sitesJlBand^b.egijo^litiiP^i-^Siwte- 
*eEsliig"the^data , %co5lired*by'*the hew facility-'as»"re3l;j . • •" 
world. "31'V Between IS "July and 1 August~thep,MWSroperated' 
the system in a "real world" Bode (althouglrdatawasV. ' 
treated as- test information) , in OT.der to verify the : .. 
contractor had completed his corrections." On 02/0001Z 
August the dual operation began." [, 

-.. ;,;. : £, - . ... ■■ Operation of the'PAVE PAKSradar 1 ^^ 
under full power conditions revealed serious, weaknesses 
in the power system.- Normally, the radar worked on com- - 
mer'cial power, but six diesel generators had been provided 
for backup in case that source was disrupted. For the 
radar's ejtergy pulse to reach out to its maximum range, 
electrical^ power was drawn into a capacitor bank, built 
up, then discharged or surged into space. This procedure, 
called power surging happened every 51 milliseconds. ■ 
The withdrawal of large amounts of power from the commer- 
cial system caused a slight flickering effect in lighting 
within the technical radar facility, the power plant, and 
in the surrounding civilian community of Sandwich, Massa- 
chusetts. As operations at full power became more 

continuous, complaints from residents threatened to 
provide new ammunition to those opposed to the facility 
on the grounds of its adverse impact on the local environ- 
ment. These power 'fluctuations also were fed back into 
the backup diesel generators when they were used, making 
them incapable of operating for extended periods as the 
primary power source. Potentially most serious- of all, 
instabilities caused by the power fluctuations might 
find their way back into the radar's electronics and 
degrade the sensor,'* 

ADCOM believed PAVE PAHS must 

■ have reliable power before it assumed operational, re- 
sponsibility and as a consequence closed its FSS-7 sites, 
and if urged AFSC-totake action to correct the problem. 35 
AFSC shared ADCOM's concern, and directed ESD to con- 

'■ tract with Raytheon to review the three-sided power :..;.;:i .- 
problem, i.e., the ability -of the diesels and; generators V r 
to operate the radar, interference with commercial ^power* ' 

■ in the local community, and light flickering in the ■ 
technical facility and power plant. 36 By the end of 
August, Raytheon had come up with a temporary. fix. It 
would modify the diesel generators, voltage regulators, 

-governors, etc. , to enable the generators -to Jiandle - 
reliably power fluctuations without affect to'' the -tech- 

"lii'ea Macili'ty^oMSmagV-'tb^tKe'SseliresT iffstarrfKar s **' ;lv 
monic filter to eliminate interference with commercial - 
power in the community; and determine the type of motor 
generator required to prevent the light flickering prob' ■ 
lem. These modifications were expected to take six to 
eight weeks; thereafter, a determination would be made 

..whether or not the power plant could be used as an 
interim backup power source, and what needed to be done-- 

■to achieve a permanent solution to the problem. 37 ADCOM 
followed progress of the modification program during 
September and late in the month, informed HQ USAF that 
since the test and modification period could last to 

_9 November,, so also would the dual operationjtitlLJhe 

JastCoast Hs'-7$3$/ 


_ Despite me increased atten- 

tion UNen the poweffroblem in the late months of the 
ye,r, biwever, modification of diesels, and new problems 

with the mechanical condition of the engines, prevented 
final testing during that tine and the year ended with 
PAVE PAWS I still in a non-operational status. 41 

With Otis still "red," the Fuzzy-7s had to stay 
-■green." The Fort Fisher and Charleston sites, which 
were to be closed in June, were still operating at the 
end of the year. The delay was expensive for ABCDM in 
direct costs ($87,000 a month), in TOY by augmentation 
personnel from throughout the command, and in personnel 
hardsnip caused by the indefinite' delay. 42 These prob- 
lems did not result it a decline of systems availability, 
however, and in a Christmas message General Kill ex- 
pressed his appreciation. 43 

.... .. .?».,{ s*^ 'i ■ >- - ■ •• ■' ;?. 

~7. ' :l.s;A';yearjagonoIone,,thoughtswe would still 
¥ be bperating.tne : Siizzyj-7. radars at Fort Fisher 
andCharleston.'SThei'fac.tithat Fuzzy is still 
Y \ up ahd^perating^s'^lip'ther lathe -long line, 
"- ,; of tnbutesiJitfethetdedicatedaen.andiwonen^who' 
: " ■'■ have' given soiiuchjofcthemseives oyer'tlw years' 
to aaiVand keep ?Wzy'green.'"'None of those 
. who have gone before, however; are more de- 
serving of .our/app'recktion than are those, 
who are 'serving. ataFojtjFisheraiid .Charleston 
today ;.;both';;those.^Hp{iiaditheir L PCS v .plans?dis- . 
^^^upi^qand^thpse;™);' because. flfinecessar.y*IDyw'»r ■-- 
will+be-awaf;ffba' home'tand loved ones 'this, 
■ holiday season:""'"?''" ' ' " _ ■' 

2. Please extend to the members of your com- 
mand not only ay appreciation but also that of 
all the officers, men,;' and women of NORAD for 
the particularly singular contribution your 
people are making^toKhe'. defense of our nation 
during the holiday! season. We will continue 

i to press here for a. ; speedy resolution of the. 

' problems which have extended your closure dates, 
but, in the meantime, until national defense 
takes a.tholiday, neither can Fuzzy. 

Perimeter Acquisition Rada r Attack Characterization 
System (PARCS] ™~ ~ — — — — — 

. The PARCS was a phased array 
AN/FPQ-16 radar built by Concrete, North Dakota, in the 
early 1970s as the nucleus of the United States Army's 
Safeguard'antiballistic missile (ABM) system. Khen it 
was decided not to proceed with an operational ABM 

system, PARCS was offered to the Air Force as a missile 
warning and space surveillance and tracking radar. Work 
by the Any and the Air Force on a transfer agreement 
began in early 1976, and the system was modified for the 
ADCOM mission during 1977. ADCOM accepted PARCS from 
the Army on 3 October 1977. The system had some unique 
characteristics, but added little to the command's total 
capabilities: it provided only marginal ICBM warning 
benefits, and the radar's ICBM data would only reconfirm 
attack characterization data from other existing and ■ 
planned systems. Site Operations and Maintenance costs 
were also high. As late as December 197$ the 'Command 
went on record as reaffirming it had no future require- 
ment for the system." 


mander of 'A"FSC", v GeireT3l~A:'ir." Slay, notified General-" ! 
Allen in early January 1979 that he' and General rHill had 
reviewed plans for EPARCS and they had concluded its 
location limited its ability to provide adequate warning 
of low angle trajectory ICBM reentry vehicles, and its 
relatively high acquisition and support costs did not 
justify its' use for the interim until BMEWSwasviiodern- 
v ized. They therefore recommended it Jje^cancelled " ..; '. .' 
as it^oes^hoFar^ff^tTKpTese'htra goo"dTetSrn^)'if , lr? ; *** 
vestment. "46 General Allen replied on 10 March 'that 
after a "thorough scrub of the EPARCS program . . . /jinc[7 
in light of- this evaluation as well- as the strategic, 
political, and technical factors, I have concluded that 
we- should go ahead with the program. "47 AFSC then said 
it would accelerate efforts to conclude the design con- 
figuration' phase cf the projec 1 t_b£jJay..andjttenj : rdti i 
ate the procu rement 

f the project 
t_phase_J8. ] 

Earlier, in December 1978, ESD 
had briefed. the AFSC staff and HQ USAP representatives 
on the concept definition phase of EPARCS (a contract 
with Bell Telephone Labs for $2 million) , and the up- 
coming acquisition and modification phase (Phase II) , 
projected to cost $27.8 million and take 23 months to 
complete, 50 Since only $15 million was available -for 

this phase, AFSC directed the program office to prepare 
a plan which fit that amount. Work ceased temporarily 
while AFSC awaited Air Staff reaction to its recommen- 
dation to terminate EPARCS, but with the early March 
direction to proceed, AFSC directed the project office to 
prepare such a program. 51 HQ USAF subsequently requested 
the final configuration be pursued in three phases to 
make it compatibkjtilh^jjfflal^f_EX^O-and-F- M l budg et. 
requests ii _ . ■ — " 


TlQUSATTeplTeTwith assurance that the $20 
Million program would contain all the features ADCOM 
had identified. 54 

The EPAKCS program briefed to USAF 17 May and 
reflected in a change to the Air Force Program Manage- 
ment Directive for. the system in early June called for 
^aiJljJoBiniontdesignrJOTCOsfeprogramvtPhasewII). for.«the.- ,'■• • 
■ v basic work of extending the range of PARCS, and a $5 
'million option for- enhancements. Two million had been 
spent on the contract definition phase. Total cost then 
was $20 million. 55 In September, the' Bell Telephone Labs 
was awarded' a contract for Phase 11.56 The PMD called 
for the work to be completed by December 1980. This 
schedulejseemed threatened in early 1980 by a delay in 
the release by the Congress of $5 Billion appropriated 
in FY-80.S7 

Defense Su pport Program 



Ground Processing Stations. 

«•**!»?«*■ •*■'•"' "t"*j ■* * 



~~~*~^-he MPF was used for analysis, training, and 
software aevelopaent and testing, it would receive « 


The OSM would be converted froi a losistks 




Space Detection and Tracking System fSPADATS) 

The SPADATS mission during 1979 
remained to detect, 'track, identify, and catalog all man- 
made objects in space (see chart, p iol), to provide sensor 
intonation on foreign space activity to CINCNORAD, and 
to support other Canadian and U.S. space agencies as re- 
quired. It consisted of a world-wide network of dedicated, 
collateral,; and contributing sensors (see map and list 

' . ; of sensors&viollowing pages).;/ Dedicated sensors were '-= 
;those*with?a;pr.imary mission. of 'SPADATS support, collateral 
"sensor's 'were* thise.'MRAD sensors whose primary mission was 
other than' SPADATS ,' and contributing sensors were non-NORAD- 
military and ^civilian sensors which were under- contract or 
agreement for; pmjtime support of SPADATS. There were only 
two changes 'in' the ; lineup of sensors during theyear. The 
missile and "satellite tracking system at TUStOG Det S, 
Diyarbakir, Turkey, which had resumed 24-hour operations 
on 24 November 1973 after being down for more than three 
years, was designated, along with the Cobra Dane radar at 
.Shemya, Alaska,- asSa-multi-aission sensor (intelligence, 

i Jpissile^aj^g^^^d A SPACETEACK). > .. i »J.t.therefore t iecame-a - ,^™ 
collateraT/jrather than a dedicated SPADATS sensor. 1 Also, 
on 29 August 'the Maui, Hawaii, Optical Tracking and 
Identification Facility (KOTI?) was transferred from the 
Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) to ABCOM. There- 
after, its status was as a dedicated USAF SPACF.TP.ACX sensor 
'rather than a contributing sensor. 

f 'r, A I 
Operating Location AA (OUA) of the 46 AERODW was activated 
1 April 1979 to operate the site. Upon implementation of the 
ADCOM reorganijation the unit was transferred to SAC. 5 

Planned Improvements j 

The Pacific Radar Barrier (PACBAR), 

1979 ! 

Cheyenne Mountaii 


Cold Lake, Alberta 

St Margarets, New 

Brunswick (SITU) 
Dahlgren, VA and 8 

southern U.S. 

sites fron CA 'to GA 

NORAD/ADCOM CoitibatjOperations 

Center , -f ■ 
Canadian Forces | - 

U.S. Navy, Space Surveillance 
System t»AVSPASD5) k 

. Z' Equipjent 

' Space Computation Center 

. Baker-Nunn Optical Sensor 

Ba'ke'r-Nunn and 24" SOI 
^Computational Center, 
^-.^transmitters and 
C"i receivers 


Edwards AFB, CA 
Sand Isl, Johnston 

San Vito AS, Italy 
Mt John, New Zealand^ 
Maui, Hawaii 

Bendix Field Engineering 
Corp and Joseph- Nunn. 
Associates (con- 



Air Force Eastern test R; 

Air' Force Western Test 

Range (AFNTR) ■ J,- 
Pacific Missile Range , 

Millstone Hill, MA ■ MIT Lincoln -Laboratory 
White Sands, NM , MIT. Lincoln- Laboratory 

:: Baker-Nunn Optical Sensors 
;'.;(teiescope-caniera space 
.^observation system) 

' Maui Optical Tracking and 
"".Identification Facility 
-, ■_■ (MOTIF) (Electro-optical) 

FPQ-1S Tracking Radar 

FPQ-'l4 Tracking Radar 
,.FPQ-14 Tracking Radar 

; .Tracking Radar 
!-Tra'chng Radar 
" GEODSS ' Optical Sensor proto- 
type, model 

Cloudcroft, NM 
Malabar, FL 


Optical Sensor 
Optical Sensor 

The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory network of 11 Baker-Nunn caaeras and 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 'also, provided data. 

Pirinclik CDI, Diyar- 

bakir, Turkey 
Sheaya AFB, Alaska 

Clear AFS, AK 
Thule AB, Greenland . 

Fylingdales, U.K. 
Eglin AFB, FL 

(Material used unclas 

f ■ 
19th Surveillance; Squadron 

(TUSLOG Bet 8)f 
16th Surveillance Squadron 

Ballistic Missile^ Early 
Karning System .(BMEWS) 

{ ' 
BMEWS |.: 
20thMsl Wrn Sq, SLBM Urn 
Systea, AlternateiSCC 

■ ' -K 

Periaeter Acquisition Radar 
Attack Charactemation 
Systea (PARCS)'j- • 
Defense Support Program 

■ $-. 
and Program Change Summary (S-l 
;ified). , | ; ■ - 

AN/FPS-17 and.AN/FPS-79 

FPS-17 Detection Radar 

(ceased operation 

1 August 1977) 
FPS-80 TR (ceased) 
■ operation 1 August 

FPS-108 Phased Array 

Radar (IOC achieved 

13 July 1977) 
1 FPS-50, 1 FPS-92 

1 FPS-50 Detection Radar, 
1 FPS-49 TR 
_3.FPS-49 TRs 

FPS-8S Phased Array Radar 
.." and peripheral data 

. processing equipment 

PhasedArray Radar (FPQ-14) 


Objects launches' Pay- ,11.5. 'Paf- USSR Pay-' -'Other ^Objects Net Gain Over 
Catalogued' I; loads loads! loads Nations Decayed Previous Vear 


579" . 

. ^ ;l06 

; 122 ; 

." J-. 


.,■.,11 ,„/., 





.; isi ■ 

■28 f, 






'. ? 28 

'.. 161 

; 32 § 

■ 122 

;":'- 7 £'V.- 




' 124 

; 136 . 

'19 h 

' 105' - 

1 u ~~~~~~ 





; .' 124 ' . 

; 161 . 

30' *:. 


"12 ;■■"; 





, ''106 . 

; 123 . 



..' 5V " i: 


75 (net 1 

SOURCE: Ltr, Lt Col T.J. O'TWurlee,' CI Te'cfMa' 5 Systems-BivfiNCOC, to'flq NORAD/ 
PAM, "Jafontiation on 1979 Space Activities," 4 Jan 80 -.(Doc 261). 

i ^7 . . In 1978 the U.S. Navy Commun'cations . 
Station, at San Miguel, in the Philippines, had wen ' 
selected as the best site for location of the AN/GPS-10 
radar which would constitute the western sector of 
PACBAR. The radar had been in storage at Clark AB 
since being removed froi Thailand in 1976. Efforts to 

,''gainf'approval,-for the installation were protracted ini- 
tially .when' .the,.issue was included in the base rights 
agreement being -negotiated between the two governments, 
but by late, 1978 the Air Force was successful in 'setting 

,it_removed,froti;the larger issue, f ] 


j By~the end of the year 
• a plan presented by General Electric, .builder, of the 
GPS-10, for reinstallation of the radar had been agreed 
tt-by ADCOM'and Hq USAF, and a woik schedule concurred in. 

advised Hq PACAFthat the San Miguel site was the only 
acceptable one and requested;it' to ask' Commander in Chief, 
Pacific (PACOM) to; insure that the necessary negotiations 
between the U.S. Embassy in Manila and the Philippine 
government were completed. 5 Although PACAF urged that 
host country^coordiriation be completed by June, Hq USAF 
wanted authority to proceed iE_Ltitods_by March.,", . . 
i,oJie_tPBS.isteni_Kilb-Ihe..u - frl " directed 7 

by the SecDef .','.. Air, Force^saiTalso that 'theTanticipated 
ADC0M. reorganization' shouldnot delay the negotiations. 
The Philippines should be 'told that if the realignment went 
through, SAC would be the resource manager of the site, but 
. the radar would support missions under CINCNORAD/CINCAD's 
operational control." .The USB 'and PACOM' raised certain 
questions, however, regarding electromagnetic compatibility 
(EMC) of the radar with communications equipment operated 
by the Navy and about protection against possible radiation 
hazards' in the area of the radar. PACOM said it had no 
record of a USAF/USN analysis of the EMC hazard at San Miguel, 

and so it held negotiations in abeyance until one was 
concluded.'? Although a draft menu of agreement was 
■ coordinated by ADCOM in late April, the memo did not 
become official until 17 August. The Air Force agreed 
to install mechanical devices on the GPS-10 which would 
prevent electromagnetic interference with Navy communi- 
cations equipment, and it would be responsible for 
identifying any radiation hazard zones relating to the 
radar and providing the necessary protection, ' At the 
end of 1979 there remained only the task oracquiring 
approval from the armed forces of the Philippines and 
the Government of the Philippines . in order to proceed 
■ with the contract for relocation of.the radar, but. they ' 
, had not, jet been*. approached. by the Air.Staf,fiK^.!^jj|ij^fe'- 

i , *J''» ' jJhe radar installation*^ Swajalein';"'' 
Atoll , the .eastern .-ancuor of -.PACBAR,.: encountered .mtgij^BSSs 1 
politicalj.but 'funding >problems,\,Jreparattons,b|j\:ontrac- ,'"' 

i'tots ■.engagedioy; thel^S. 'Army; in' anticipatron^oiSwiW^flJ 

', ing the iAEPAilongiRaSge" Tracking and; In ; strnientltisp!ladar|s*' 
(ALTAIRjfon Kwajaleili to function as a SPADATS sehsof^'gj: 
had been-halted in 1 October 1978 when FY-79 funds were ; J.: '":' 
frozen by the Office on the Undersecretary of .Defense,*; v 
■Research and Engineering. Responsive to the concerns 'of (:.-■ 
Mr. Robert jYost.'ofsthat. office, .on 6 April;,1979;'-M'COlWk»j 
ESD.,^S^Oj¥ffld;Uiajto;uboratoiy'bii»fediiij^^JilR's'* ' 


'.PACBAR sens'or.'TThe OSD subsequently released'aodification- 
funds early June ($1.1 million .in FY-79 money):;'. GTE'" i S''.'.'-;.- 
Sylvania, with the assistance of Lincoln laboratory,, would 
modify the radar. When the work was completed, estimated -. 
in September 1981, the U.S. Amy would operate the radar in 
support of ..Western Test Range launches and in response to ^ 
ADCOM's high and, low altitude space tasking. -f.^ - ^'K^;./^.. 

' Ground-Based Electro -Optical 'Deep Space System . ' ■■' 
GEOOSS offered near. term improvement in deep space : 
detection and tracking. Plans called for. a network 
of five sites--one in the U.S. and four -overseas—located 
' at roughly -equal intervals around the globe. Each site 
would use 3 telescopes, TV cameras, a digital computer, 
and related electronic and communications equipment, With 
near real time equatorial coverage- at geosynchronous, it ■ 
promised .substantial improvement over the 20 year old- Baker-' . 
Nunn cameras, the system it would replace, like the Baker- 
(iunn system, however, GEODSS' operations would be confined to 

Military Uses of Space: 1946-1991 

inc., 1101 King StreeJ, Alexandra. Virginia 22354 
1946-1991 pi 

isd. assembled, and in 

Security Archive, a non-profit. Washington, D.C. based research insiriuteand library. Hie microfiche 
collection is accompanied by Military Uses of Space: 1946-1991 Guide and Index. 

Arrangement of Information on the Microfiche: 

file documents are arranged in chronological order. A unique identification number is assigned to 
iv document begins a new line on the microfiche. 

Document Quality: 

The qualify of the original material varies. In the case of each document. Chadwyck-Healey Inc. has 

filmed the best copy made arable by the National Security Archive. 

Microfiche Numbering: 

The unique identification (lumbers assigned loihe documents are listed in the top right hand comer 

of the microfiche i&e skip. 

Technical Data: 

Producing Laboratory; Chadwyck-Healey Inc. 

Date of Publication of Microfiche Edition: 1991 

Format: 49 frame, 1 05mm x 148mm silver haiide microfiche, 24x nominal reduction 

The arrangement of the pages on microfiche is the property of Chadwyck-Healey Inc. Paper Copies 
of She arrangement of pages on microfiche maybe made without the written permission of 
Chadwyck-Healey inc. for internal and reference use only and not for resale. 

Chadwyck-Healey Ltd.. ' 

Document Quality: 

Through the use of the Freedom of Information Act and an extensive network of government, media, 
and academiccontacts, foe National Security Archive has developed this varied collection of primary 
materials. Just as the type of materials included varies, so does the quality of each document. 

quality, most complete copy available of each document. Chadwyck-Hsaley Inc. has faithfully 

ManyoMhedocumentsincluded inihis publication were prevtouslyclassffiedbyiheU.S, Government 
and even when declassified, sections or pages may be ooiiterated by the government due to !he 
potentially sensitive information contained in them. 

The variety of material reproduced in this publication includes photocopies or poor carbon copies of 

press reports. This variety can preseRtdifficuBiesof imageandcontrastw/hich the mostcafeftjiflming 

and processing cannot entirely overcome. 

have been produced to the highest quality and conform to AIIM, BSI and ANSi standards. 

times when the camera was in darkness and the object 
viewed was illuminated by sunlight, and when there was 
no cloud cover. Only a future space-based sensor would 
not be so limited. 

The COWS GEODSS location, at 
Stallion, New Mexico, was established as an experimental 
test site (ETS) in 1975 for development by MIT/Lincoln 
Laboratory of system technology. ADCOM personnel, or- 
ganised as an operating location of the 26th Air Defense 
Squadron, began manning the facility in 1977 to train, 
provide interim operation of test sensors, and to develop 
operating' procedures for use at future sites. On 15 Hay 
1978 Thonpson-Ramo J tJoolridge (TW) Corporation -was ■ 
awarded a contract for three GEODSS sites and on option ■ 
to build two more. - Equipment, installation, and. testing 
for .three sites would cost $33.04 million; the cost of - 
five sites (to include operations and maintenance through 
the first quarter of FY-83) would be-$62 million. TM's 
efforts to date in the design and management of the 
operational GEODSS had been, in ADCOM's estimation, very 
satisfactory. No problems threatened the planned turn- 
over date of April 1981 for the Hew Mexico site. The 
second and third sites, in South Korea (near Taegu), and- 
. on the island of Maui, Hawaii, were planned for turnover 
,Jinjuly„19,81 ,and Janaary, 19J2,,* T J haj.,schedule„ a,lso t iej, 

in'ed firm.^ The "fourth and'fifth sites, on the other 
hand, presented substantial problems of site_location. and 
this, tended, -injurn. to .del-ay fundihe. f" 


* Maui had earlier been the fourth site and Morocco'the 
third, but they were switched in early 1979 when Moroccan 
approval was delayed. 


SIC, wao acquired resource manageoent respon- " r 
"Sibility for tie system from ADCOH on 1 Decesber as a result ■ , 
of the reorganisation, reconaended tie island of Diego 
.Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, as the fifth site, IS 

„;. :.'.x>m- '"-~<-:jr. - "Splat's ML v /»/■ ■■ . -f- 

• ■ -* ;:;..-.Jhe.-SationaliiAeronautic5 and Space Atain'istration's 
Skylab.san'tbjbitalvworbhop'.Isas launched 14 Hay 1973.- Dm- ' 

-i rng the&ext.,year'»t.tosted,several astrmuut-teajs.- By 
■.■e«il)T..19^43(UBiits^cSS#l8J.-61ijectives had leenlcoipleted 
and the^tationVsasj-abandoned-.lo NASA expected 'tie 77.5 ton 
satellite: to rcBainZal'ofttiintil 1983,. but greater than pre-- 
dieted sunspot activity,' which caused the earth's outer 
ataosphere to expand and slow down orbiting objects, speeded 
up the. decay of .Skylabis=j>rMt., NASA prepared plans to have 

I an;aititjaut*Jrpa|jhel^e|shuttle attach rockets to 


•.er orbittand-pTeservedfa-libilellongerjliut the'=shuttle pro- 
.gram:wES-'aelayed*aid»%lab}couldn't wait:17-l'In-August 1977, 
KORAD, at the request of NASA's Marshall SpacVFlight Center, 
perforoed ah independent lifetime expectancy study on Skylab 
and predicted it would reenter the Earth's atmosphere between 
June 1979 and April 1980. NASA's efforts to reposition the 
vehicle tofreduce .drag Were not very successful, and the . 
space station sunk closer- tti Earth. 18 SASA calculated 38 -f 
large parts totaling about 40,000 pounds Bight survive re- * 
entry. The largest piece weighed 5,000 pounds. I 9 NASA and • 
the Air Force emphasized the stall odds of 'such debris strik- 
ing or killing anyone. An official news release stated: "The 
area over, which Skylab is orbiting is approximately 75 per- 
cent water and 98 percent of the land mass has less than one 
person per acre. "20 The area lay between 50 degrees north 
latitude and 50 degrees south latitude, looking at it a 

■ different way, one magazine calculated 90 percent of the ' 
world's population lived between those latitudes and were 
thus in Skylab's path.21 By February 1979, NORAD's decay 

prediction had been narrowed to between April and September. 22 

While the media grew increasingly speculative about 
the possible consequences of SJcylab's fall, and public inter- 
est in the event heightened and sometimes took curious forms 
of expression, 23 NASA began its preparation by conducting two 
exercises simulating Skylab's entry. One, in April, used the 
actual reentry of a Soviet rocket body; and the other, in 
June, was a pure Skylab simulation. They tested the readi- 
ness of all in NASA and the ttffl who would be involved in the 
real event. 2 * NASA, by agreement with the DOD and interested 
civilian agencies, would be the overall controlling agency 
for Skylab decay. Besides NORAD tracking and impact pre-.. .^ 
.diction reports, tie JBD. would provide logistics, 'itranspo'f-.-s| 
tation, medical, engineering, and communications. support -'t^-r 
should it be called upon.^ s The JCS requested NORAD support 
NASA with reentry .predictions in'.the same manner it had for 
• COSMOS ,954', the '.Soviet satellite'which had impacted in Canada . 
in early 1978.26 'cThe : Space Defense Center could call upon 
NORM'S regular Space Detection and Tracking Systea (SPADATS) . 
and other DOD and NASA radars would be available as reentry 
tiae drew near. NORAD Satellite Situation Reports (NSSR) 
were issued on a weekly basis beginning S April, and a week ' 
before entry they were. issued daily. The S April NSSR said ; 
there was a SO percent probability of Skylab decaying be- - ■ 
«tweendOJune'5nd»13-^Tulyp>and«arfO»p'ercent"chance*it T wouU^»« 
decay by 22 June. 27 On 20 June NASA reoriented Skylab into 
a sideways position to provide more stability as it neared 
reentry, and to perait last minute course changes if inhab- 
ited areas seemed threatened. The lab's decay was also 
accelerated because of the increased drag that altitude 
create'd. NORAD now predicted 90 percent chance Skylab would 
decay between 10 July and 20 July, with a 50 percent chance ^ 
it would decay by 15 July. 28 T- 

As reentry time drew near, SPADATS was augmented 
by other DOD and NASA systems, and even four French sites. • 
Twenty eight sites in all provided over 300 observations a 
day. Eleven hours before reentry the Space Defense Center 
issued a prediction (plus or minus two and one-half hours) 
which indicated the satellite impact area could be in eastern 
North America rather than in the Atlantic Ocean as earlier 
predicted. 29 NASA then ordered the on-board computer to 
fire the craft's small maneuvering rockets, putting the 
vehicle into a tumbling motion. This would reduce drag and 
put the impact point back out in the ocean.-" Based on cal- 

culations with the vehicle in its new attitude, the Space 
Defense Center six hour calculation placed splash down in 
the North Atlantic: but the margin of error was still 72 
minutes or plus or minus 207,000 miles. 3 ! the one hour 
prediction had the satellite breaking up south of Africa in 
the Indian Ocean at 1626Z, 11 July, plus or minus 26% min- 
utes or 8,000 miles.32 0a its 34,981st and final orbit 
Skylab moved out of the Pacific, passing over Seattle, 
Washington; sped over the 'northern part of the U.S.; moved 
out over the Atlantic; and took a path between Korth and 
South America and Europe and Africa, NASA's Bermuda track- 
ing station reported the lab still intact. Ascension Island, 
, -in the Atlantic";south of the Equator, then acquired the : - ^ 
.jitraclr' and- followed it as the satellite raved around the 
*■ : .southern- tip .of 'Africa into the Indian Ocean. 'The lab had 
proved surprisingly durable, but it was now descending 
rapidly, 3 j;. ! Glowing with the heat of reentry,' Skylab moved 
; -•awaysfxoiii?the;-t'ip of Africa and its major predicted impact 
'pointTsnthtloser to Australia. Ascension reported it had 
lost the signal, then a H0EAD sensor reported debris" falling 
in the Indian" Ocean, southwest of Australia, and moments la- 
ter 'visual sighting began to come into the Space Defense 
Center and NASA. Perhaps ti^ sost graphic description came 
, from _an air line pilot flying northeast of Perth: "We saw ■ 
«hatSre* believe was the reentry of jour Skylab. . . It had 
lights and^"-"dlstin'ct-blue*growftlmbsnike 'aircraft "head-**" * 
lights. I had the impression it had a boic shape. As it 
descended further it changed from a bright blue to an almost 
orangey red and you would see the break-up starting to occur 
... As the break-up continued, it finished up as a very 
bright orange ball in the front end and remainder in the 
behind giving off sparks and you could almost detect the 
metal or whatever was falling down to earth. It has a very > 
long tail, perhaps several 100 miles long.' 1 ?* Official con-' 
'firaation that Skylab. was down came when radars in the Paci- 
fic, 'in North Dakota and Virginia failed to pick up the 
satellite. N0RAD then provided NASA its last tracking and 
impact prediction that Skylab decayed in the earth's atmos- 
phere over the Indian Ocean and southwest Australia at 1637 
Zulu time, creating a corridor 1,200 miles long and 100 miles 
wide. Debris from the shattered satellite which survived re- 
entry fell within that footprint. 35 Parts which fell on land 
came down in the Australian Outback, one of the most sparsely 
populated regions on Earth. For a brief time such strange 
sounding places as Mgoorie, Ballandonia, Rawlinna, and 
Noondoonia were prominent in the news; but the falling debris 
caused no loss of life or injury and only negligible property 

damage. 56 Skylab decayed within 11 minutes of the time 
predicted by the Space Defense Center's Reentry Working 
Group in its estimate Bade one hour before reentry. The 
precision and accuracy of the Group's decay prediction 
work was recognized by NASA, the Secretary of Defense, 
and the Chief of Staff, USAF. Tangible recognition came 
to Lt Col Terence J. O'Rourke and Major Thomas J. Cross 

, when they were awarded the HASA Exceptional Service Medal 

.■ later in the year. 3? 

The Issue of "Blu e Suit" Launch 

The 10th Aerospace Defens-; Squadron 
(AERODS), Vahdenberg AFB,. California,, had the. mission of 
p launching - military- weather^satellites |in 'the: Defense Meteor- " 
lological Satellite Program (DMSP),:^' .;-■■ ■ ><>*-, -;, 


_ iADCOH FooJc pnae in tne perioraance sttot ■ 

'Force's only "blue suit" launch teas, and ttas anxious to 
identify future missions for tie unit, -perhaps in connec- 
tion with the antisatellite program.™ Developments during 
1979 made it certain that if the Air-Force; choie'to main- 
tain a"blue suit" launch team -in'the 'future, ?an uncertain 
-prospect^itt«uld"functioni'under«the : iaegis*of!'SAO?and-not-«"" 

) In 1S78 it had been determined 
that the weight growth of future DMSP. satellites would not 
permit their being launched by the Thor missile. SAHSO had 
recommended .the program be switched to bigger ATLAS" boosters 
launched by a contractor team, ADCOM opposed. such a move .. 
for several reasons, perhaps the most Significant 'of which ' : ; 
was the threat it posed to the mission of 10th AERODS. 
Generals Hill and Slay (A?SC commander) apparently resolved ■ 
the issue to ADCOM's satisfaction and it was agreed DMSP 
would continue to be launched using Thor until the Space 
Shuttle took-over the satellite's mission.^ Anxious that 
the squadron's authority in such matters not be diluted, 
General Hill responded with concern to Lieutenant General 
R.C. Henry upon learning in early 1979 that the SAMSO 
commander had directed the 6595th Space Test Group be the 
single SAMSO connection with the 10th AERODS on DMSP matters. 
Since such direction seemed to prevent the squadron's com- 

mander from working directly with SAMSO program officers 
and contractors, and is effect removed him from the decision- 
Esfcisg process, General Hill thought SAMSO and ADCOM should 
review the existing memo of agreement between them regarding 
DMSP and asked for a meeting in late March. 42 Such a meeting 
was preempted, in effect, by a gathering of ADCOM and AFSC 
representatives on 17 April, one which SAMSO declined to at- 
tend. Jurisdictional issues and command perogatives were 
discussed at length, and agreement was reached that better 
communications between the two commands was needed, but no 
action was taken to better define the responsibilities of 
each in running space launch services.*' ADCOM and SAMSO 
did not meet to consider a new MOA, but the ADCOM DCS Oper- 
ations and. SAMSO Vice Commander agreed the 8 November 1977 „:.; 
MOA woBld«aain in effect until, it could be revised landti'^at 
agreed upon. 44 '. ,' '.>.' '•"< -.■'-. ■<■■'?.'■•;*■;> '■.".-.'.'" , ; ^ti* 

; ■ :y'. ';• •- ' Another prece ived t hreat .to the, con-,: 
tfnuaiice 'of .a ."blue- suit'^-launch capability; arrived in March 
in the formjof a revised Program Management Directive for ~ i ' 
DMSP, replacing one dated 7 November 1977.'- Deleted was the' ' 
requirement that military 'personnel conduct launch and or- " 
bital operations. Also, AFSC was given joint responsibil- 
ity, with ADCOM, for field check out and launch of DMSP 
satellites, thus further complicating, in ADCOM's opinion,. 
issues of. jurisdiction 'and coraaand perogatives,:,. Fueling • .";•.. 
of two advanced new DMSP sensors.. Earlier 'discussions about 
these heavier satellites in late 197S had caused SAMSO to' 
recommend, transfer of DMSP operations to contractor operated 
ATLAS E/F launchers. 4 5 ADCOM told Hq, OSAF that it considered 
' these changes "detrimental to the Air Force space launch , 
mission. "4.6 Hq USAF continued to consider several, options 
and on 103uly the Directorate of Space, DCS Research and , . 
Development asked AFSC and ADCOM to identify any advantages?-' 
and disadvantages, other than cost, of transferring DMSP to 
the ATLAS launch vehicle, 47 ADCOM's lengthly reply addressed" 
pros and cons of the issue, but went into some detail on what 
the command believed was the real issue; whether or not the 
Air Force ^needed to retain a military space launch capability. 
ADCOM recalled that twice before a conscious decision had 
been made to "retain it: in 1375 when the prototype ASAT 
Program 437L was terminated, and again in late 1978 when 
General Slay and Hill had agreed the DMSP program baseline 
would be maintained and no more sensors would be added until 
DMSP transitioned to the Space Shuttle. ADCOM also emphasized 

that the Air Force, in AFM 26-1, had tied together space 
policy and military operations for space launch and space 
defense, and had directed use of military personnel in com- 
bat, and direct support; thus national and military poli- 
cies had established the requirement for military involve- 
ment in space. ' Present and possible future missions for 
10th AERODS wer- discussed. Recognising the advantage of 
■ satellite growtn potential offered bv using the ATLAS, 
ADCOM still believed the loss of "blue suit" launch capa- 
bility with DMSP (unless other missions were assigned), 
and total dependence upon aerospace contractors, to be of 
more serious consequence. ADCOM recommended to Hq USAF 
that the status quo be continued, i.e., continuance of DMSP/ 
Thor operations to maintain a military space launch capa- 
bility and. toj guarantee its existence until DMSP transi- 
, -timed to the. Space Shuttle. 48 _■_ , . 

. No decision was immediately forthcoming, and in 
accordance -with provisions-' of the ADCOM reorganization on - 
1 November 1979 the 10th AERODS was inactivated and' its-- 
assets and people integrated with those of the'394 Test 
Maintenance Squadron, First Strategic Aerospace Division, 
SAC, at Vandenberg AFB.** It is not appropriate to spec- 
ulate here on what position that command will take with . 
regard to the. issues surrounding Thor- versus ATLAS for the 
launch'of J)MSP,saad , ,the most, basic -issue of continuing! to •.:■ 
,,main^inia,5ii5ltaiy y Iaunch- : team. i£er-tainly the -issues hadi*-- 
been defined;-during 1979, but no progress was made .toward 
their solution. Late in the year the DMSP Systems Program 
Office of AFSC's Space Division briefed the ADCOM staff on 
an acoustics problem which had developed with Thor boosters 
caused by the growth of the satellites weight and the addi- 
tional thrust. required to put it into orbit. Of the five 
options offered for its correction, only one, launching DMSP 
from ATLAS and 'deactivating the ''blue suit" launch capabili- 
ty represented a cost savings.* 5 " General Hill wrote the 
AFSC commander, General Slay, that while he understood the - 

Others would redesign and requalify the satellite 
and continue launching it on Thor; modify the Thor satellite 
launch complex (SLC-10W and stay on Thor; move the operation 
to SLC-2K and stay on Thor; and launch DMSP on ATLAS at SLC-3 
but still maintain a blue suit launch capability). 

technical problem of satellite weight growth hadnecessi- 
tated a search for alternatives, he thought such an 
endeavor should not be linked with the issue of continu- 
ing a "blue suit" launch capability. He reminded General 
Slay of their mutual efforts during' the previous, fall to 
disentangle the two questions. Hill's position remained 
as follows: 51 

■ "I continue to firmly believe that it is in 
the Air Force interest, as we enter the 
decade of the '80s, to maintain a 'blue 
suit' launch capability. But, at the sane 
time; I as not 'hart over' on that capabil- 
. i "itjr;belng exclusively tied to Thor DMSP^. -1~ 
support. :|.Thefe may" well be other missions "(I-*. .■ ;- - 
that offer a better payoff for using this- 1 : ' ' ' : 
'blue istiit' talent; we should loot at this . 
now and proceed to make it happen," ..- ..-■ ■. , 

Consolidated Space Operations Center (CSOC) 

Once they were in orbit, all U.S. military satel-- 
' lites were monitored and controlled by the Satellite Test ,_ .'. ■ 
Center, a part of the Air Force 'Satellite Control .Facility,. . 
Sunnyvale,. California, a subordinate organisation of Space - 
\"andiMissik*Systeiis«CTganization*(SAMSO)'^of6th'eV'c<in I ^°' wll *f 
t'rol cente'f~exlsted which could, assume jts -fimctlonSj/and;, . '-" 
'■ so loss o'f'the Sunnyvale" Facility would result 'in an '■ ■"' "■ 
'eventual loss-of control over-O. space systems. ■: "By ■■. ■ • 
.early 1979, therefore, the Air- Force had approved- another 
"Control center, it had been budgeted for, and- initial site" 
surveys had been made. Plans called for construction to ■ 
begin in FY 81, with achievement of an initial -operating-, in- 
capability in June 1984. 54 "'■_.-. ■ f? 

"" - Air Force surveys -eventually con-" 
sidered 12 possible locations for the facility which would'" 
.house the. Consolidated Satellite. Operations''- Center (SOC). ■ 
(the new name!for the Satellite Control Facility) and the- 
Shuttle Operations and Planning Center (SOPC).; Peterson- 
AFB was -among those surveyed, but its lack of land for the 
facility and expansion potential;' primarily, prevented it . 

from being favorably considered.*" Kirtland AFB, New 
Mexico, was the location recommended to Undersecretary 
of the Air Force Dr. Hans Mark in the middle of May 1979, 
Dr. Mark reportedly felt that the nature of the siting 
criteria used prevented a clear choice of Kirtland or any 
other sites surveyed. He asked that the criteria be re- 
examined and that consideration be given to consolidating 
three space control facilities--the SOC, the SOPC, and the 
NAVSTAR Global Positioning System Control Center ,8 --into 
one Consolidated Space Operations Center (CSOC) . In con- 
sideration of Dr. Mart's guidance, AFSC tasked SAMSO to 
make another review. 54 Four principal candidates emerged 
by early July: Kirtland, Luke, Malmstrom, and Peterson 
AFBs.SS Subsequently, TAC's concerns about the effect on 
its training mission at Luke AFB of locating .the CSOC there , 
resulted in its removal from consideration. ■ Then. there were 
three. 56 . ■ . . ' • . - •' 

Conceptual operational planning for the; CSOC pro- 
ceeded 'concurrently with, base surveytefforts'.vln'.'th'e mid- 
dle of June, . Dr. Mark asked the Air Force for a concept 6£ 
operations for the CSOC. Prepared within the'' month by a ' 
joint group consisting of Hq USAF, ADCOM, SAC, and SAMSO 
representatives, ^ the "CSOC Operations Management Concept" 
listed the three control functions to be performed:^ 

^OP'cr w Priiffiry J control*of^huttle for national*" 
security missions (military and intelligence), 

*'"' Survey "guidelines specified the facility would'be 
placed on government land, and Peterson did not have suffi- 
cient land. available for the initial facility or for pos- ' 
. sible growth. In addition, base facilities were judged in- 
sufficient. Also, a potential hazard would exist if the 
facility were placed-on Peterson. because electromagnetic 
radiation (EHR) emanations from its antennas could affect . 
military and. civilian aircraft landing nea'rby. 

** ' NAVSTAR GPS, under development in 1979, would be 
a network 'of 24' satellites which would provide extremely 
precise positioning and navigation information worldwide to 
both U.S. military and civilian agencies such as FAA. SAC 
was expected to put the system into operation in 1987. 

Would perform flight planning, training, 
readiness, command and control as the pri- 
mary facility. Back-up capability for 
national security missions would be through 
the Controlled Security Mode at Johnson 
Space Center. 

SOC: Primary control of operational mili- 
tary satellites and compatible with the 
Satellite Test Center (STC) at Sunnyvale, 
California,- to provide back-up capability. 
The STC would be the primary control faci- 
lity for R5D military satellites. 

GPS ,NCC:,, Would : be, the mission control' ;. 
■...'centerJinltheiSOC^ortion of.the CSCO '. 
for?coitrbl: of -GPS satellites. .'"•■" 

According to,, the .Management; Concept, NORAD/ADCOM's Space 
Defense OperationsVCenter'?(SPAI)0C).wpuld link the CSOC and" 
other space useTs. (federal, agencies' and owners of commer- ■ 
cial satellites). 

j In its efforts to influence the bas- 
ing decision in favor. of Colorado Springs, ADCOM emphasized 
the future operationaUand :long:iterm cost benefits -of having 
-. the CSOC-inipjmimiw'to^,he,._SMpC.' I-4-felt..Jhe criterion!. - 
^of'conside'fi^onlyTfe3erartan3-:for,the : .facility too. re- 
strictive.;- and it emphasized to;AFSC and HqUSAF.-that about' 
- '500, acres of land was' available east 'of Peterson AFB, 'far .■ 
. enough away- from the air traffic pattern" to" meet' EMR hazard 
criteria,- which could be acquired at .about $600 to $700 an ■ 
acre. 59 Nonetheless, when the survey team visited the 
three bases again in September to bring up to date data 
collected earlier, the, result" was again favorable to Kirt-"'" 
land AFB. Peterson met aost_ of.. the_ criteria, but. if the . 
' facility .had'to be located oh federal land, the base was 
still deficient in that regard. °0 Plans at the time called 
for Dr. Mark to make his decision by late Semptember, and 
public annpuncensent;»ould be made'. on 1" October, On 25 
September' Dr. Mark, the .'Air Force Chief of Staff, the Vice 
Chief of Staff reviewed the .latest survey, but no decision 
was' made pending resolution of several questions raised in 
the briefing. Most significantly, the Vice Chief of Staff 
asked CINCAD to consider further the 'operational considera- 
tions of the site selection. M General Hill replied that 
location of the CSOC in Colorado Springs offered opera- 
tional effectiveness through collocation and a supporting 

organizational structure in the Cheyenne Mountain Complex. 
Hill observed Kirtland had been preferred because existing 
facilities were available and construction costs were low, 
and added " - . . this conclusion was unfortunately devoid of 
any operational considerations or long-term cost benefits," 
The, CINCAD examined at length the operational advantages of' 
internetting and perhaps functionally integrating the soon- 
to-be operational SPADOC and the future CSOC, together with 
the growth potential such an arrangement would have, and con- 
cluded these considerations outweighed the near-term cost 
savings to be realized by placing'the facility at Kirtland. 
He 'also noted that the CSOC Management Concept emphasized 
close coordination between the SPADOC and CSOC, Thus if 
both were in Colorado Springs, integrated operational plan- 
ning would be enhanced, coordination. time minimized, and.-,.. -. 
-decision making optimized." .General Hill' concluded:^ ■.■■.r r y*,:£ 

". . . the. location of the CSOC is a very 
import ant /decision that goes well beyond _ . 
" the initial analyses. ' Although communi- 
cations technology could provide a measure 
of connectivity between the SPADOC and 
CSOC from any of the proposed locations, 
the operational benefits I have described 
can only be gained by selecting Peterson 
over Kirtland or Malmstrom. Operational. . ■' 
. factors,' including preserving growth v and r , i(v ^ _ ^^ 
"■' V ' org'anizat^ona!"op'tions,*'''iHust' weigh"'' lieavily^ ■»--**** 
on the final decision." 

And they did.' Dr. Mark's 'decision, announced to 
the public on 20 December, said the CSOC would be located 
east of Colorado. Springs on one of three parcels of land 
under consideration (two owned by the State of Colorado and 
one privately); and he emphasized the "unique operational 
adv;. tages" o£ having the new facility near the SPADOC, 
■sinc«; '"As "our national 'dependence' on space for national 
security increases, 2 joining of .the capability to control 
our satellites with ability to detect hostile actions a- 
gainst them will become increasingly important." 03 , If the 
environmental impact analysis were favorable, no problems 
developed in the acquisition of the land needed., and fund- 
ing was not delayed, construction would start in FY 82 and 
the IOC would be 1985. What organization would exercise 
operational control over the CSOC had not yet been de- 
cided, 64 Local reaction to the announcement was naturally 
quite favorable. Newspapers underscored the uplifting ef- 

feet the Center's reported 2,000 military and civilian ei- ■ 
ployees would have on the local economy, and one paper 
carried it as one of the top ten local stories of 1979. ' 
Senator Hart and Representative Kramer, who with the rest 
of Colorado delegation expressed satisfaction that their 
efforts, had been successful, spoke of the military effect- 
iveness and defense cost savings which would accrue as, a 
result of the consolidation. 65 The Air Force was able to 
make its choice on solid operational grounds, while at the 
sane tiae it achieved a counterbalance to the closure of • 
ADCOM and thus gave reassurance of a continued strong Air 
Force presence in the area. 

Space Defeasejjystai Planning 

■ Space. Defense for' nt ifl3ffJi!IPi.ff.,fii&P!ifi),- ■ ' "'- 

On 1 March Dr. Gerald P. Dinneen, 
Assistant Secretary of Defense (C3I),'did indeed request the 
Air Force prepare a plan by 1 April for establishing aSPADOC 
by 1 July. It would be, Dr. Dinneen realised, only an ini- 
tial 5PADQC with limited capabilities since it would be con- 
stituted from existing ADCOM assests. It would grow as space 
defense capabilities and systems reached their operational 
state. 68 On 12 March, ftq USAF, in turn, directed ADCOM to 
prepare an Implementation Plan. 69 Since, as mentioned, 
work on such a plan had preceeded the request, a briefing 
presenting basic philosophy, operations concept, location 
of the facility, schedules, and maiming requirements was 
quickly prepared and coordinated. The CINCAD approved the 
implementation briefing in.-the middle of the months and on 
29 March the Air Force Council' 'concurred. " Dr.', Dinneen 
approved it 30 April. '* An activation plan followed in 
July.? 2 . ■ ■ . 


Since the SPADOC would use 427M sys- 
tem computer terminals, and that system was not scheduled to 
achieve an equivalent operational capability until 30 July 
1979, ADCOMplanned to begin limited SPA30C operations on 
1 October in lieu of 1 July as suggested by n r , Dinneen. 
That date was acceptable, and although the 427H EOC sub- 
sequently slipped to 4 September, ADCOH was able to begin 
Phase I SPADOC operations on 1 October. '3 Nine of the 18 
authorised crew members were available on that date, and 
by the end of the year a full complement of trained crews 
was available." At the end of the year ADCOH staff sup- 
pott of SPADOC focused on negotiations to establish formal >■ 
agreements with the owners and operators of U.S. military 
and civil satellites and allied space systems.. Kien con- 
cluded, those agreements would specify the type of isfonar 
tion regarding satellite status which would be sent to the 
SPADOC and the warning and attack verification information 
which would be sent to the KMCC and satellite owners and 
operators. SPADOC development would coincide with devel- 
opment of an antisatellite system. Phase II, to begin in 
1982, would support development, test, sad evaluation of an 
air launched miniature vehicle (AM). Phase III, a year 
later, would provide control of aa operational ALMV and 
.otherj^ATs.^Ey,.the^ate.l?8ps J JPAl) J ide,the„c3« 
"'structure tying togetieFU'S'.' satellite wanting and attack 
verification and negation of hostile satellites, "5 

flntisatellite Proqram MU-Pufc 


Soviets had tested an ASM as early as 1963. Between 1967 ■»■ 
and 1977 they conducted 25 possible satellite interceptor 
tests, in 1977 two more, and in 1978 one. In early 1978 
the Soviets were credited by ABCOM with the ability to ne- 
gate low altitude U.S. space systems; and the Soviet Galosh 
antiballistic missile system had a limited nuclear ASAT 
capability, , , 

Renewed Soviet ASAT activity, however, 
plus a growing reliance by the U.S. on space based systems 
for a variety of military missions, and concerns expressed 
by CINCAD encouraged the JCS to seek the support of Secretary 

of Defease Brown for an operational ASAT. Although the pre* 
ferred U.S. policy was to conclude an agreement with the 
Soviet Union which would ban all ASAT activity, on 20 
January 1978 Secretary Brown also directed the Undersecre- 
tary of Defense for Research and Engineering to organize 
a vigorous and comprehensive ASAT development program. A 
subsequent JCS memo on 1 May specified a need for an inter- 
im ASAT and suggested an IOC of 1983, Preliminary targets 
identified included satellites performing electronic in- 
telligence, photoreconnaissance, ocean surveillance, commu- 
nications, navigation, and meteorology, " On 4 Hay 1978 the 
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Policy) established an 
ASAT Task Force to analyze requirements.* Phase I of its 
study, completed in late September, established general 
. requirements. rPhase'II, began in early March 1979, looked 
to the 1978-90. Soviet' space threat and its effect on U.S. 
forces, and the 'effectiveness of various level of dollar 
investment for'severart>ixes..of surveillance, command and 
control, and satellite' negation. systems." As planned in 
early 1979, the/negation part of the system was expected 
to consist of an Air launched Miniature Vehicle (ALMV), a 
backup ground launched conventional vehicle (a missile with 
a pellet warhead) , a ground based high energy laser system, 
and an instrumented test vehicle (ITV) target to test ac- 

.■^-,^«.«s*«^^ ( aS,n St ->.«u« l Syste.!!S .Command develop-aw* 
ment 'efforts during 1979 focused on the ALMV. The 55-pound 
payload would be launched from an F-1S and a two stage roc- 
ket would power it to altitudes up. to 600 nm, where it would 
impact directly on the target satellite'. According to the 
ASAT Program Management Directive of 19 June 1979, flight 
tests were to begin in 1982 and an IOC was scheduled for 
1985, A limited operating capability would follow the Ini- 
tial Operation Test and Evaluation phase, using residual 
research and development aircraft, missiles, miniature ve- 
hicles, etc. In case the ALMV encountered development or 

*£UJ The Study Grouo consisted of representatives from 
MSA, DIA, JCS, Undersecretary of Defense (Policy), NSA (Re- 
search and Engineering), Assistant SecDef (C5l), unified and 
specified Commands and the services. Maj R, Vercruyse, ADCOM/ 
XPDSD, headed the Operations Requirements Working Croup. 

test problems, plans called for a backup ground launched 
system using the Spartan missile. This system would not 
be pursued beyond the development phase, however, unless 
the ALMV encountered difficulty. Lasers were the pre- 
ferred future ASAT weapon. The Air Force Weapons Lab at 
Kirtland AFS was developing technology for a ground based 
..laser (GBL) which could negate a satellite. A GBL capa- 
bility' was scheduled for demonstration in FY-84, withan 
operational system shortly thereafter. The ITV, test tar- 
get for the ASAT weapons systems, would he designed and 
built by AVCO Systems Division. That company was awarded 
a contract in Hay 1979, Its concept called for a 6.S foot 
-balloon with a grid detection system to score hits and a 
short range radar 'for near misses.'^ 

'■'■ , -'■''' ■" :'. . ' ' '":.%f: : 

ADCOM's contribution during the . 
formative stages of conceptual planning for ASAT was fo 
define operational requirements. Its Systems Operational ..^ 
Concept for the ALMV, produced in early. 1979 and updated in'' 
July, made maximum use.of.existing organizations and commu- 
nications systems, HcChord AFB, Washington, and C-riffiss '■• 
AFB, NY, were tentatively selected as operational bases. 
One squadron of F-15s at each base would have a dual air 
defense-ASAT mission. CIKCAD's operational direction would 
be exercised from a Mission Control Center in the Space } 
Defense Operations Center ;(SPAD0C) in Cheyenne' Mountain, ' '■. , ' 
iand.goithroKgh^tKOjRegion Operations-iControl -Centers * ! (ROGGS);?»i 
to the F-15 squadron." 'In another extensive planninjfe;f£of't *■'"' " 
during 1979, ADCOM prepared a Statement of Operational Need-" 
(SON) for a Space Defense Negation System. It brought. to- 
gether into one document surveillance, command and control, 
and negation requirements previously submitted over the 
past two years in separate Required Operational Capability . 
(ROC) documents. After coordination within the staff and ^ 
with interested MAJCOMs, the 'document was forwarded to Hq 'W' 1 
USAF in December. 79 Also, responding to Hq USAF. and AFSC 
requests for a description of required ALMV capabilities 
during the period when it would have a limited operating 
capability (roughly the period from FY-83, the end of 
I0TSE, toTY-85, achievement of an IOC), ADCOM clarified 
certain operational and support features of the prototype 
system. Either AFSC or TAC F-ISs could be used, with main- 
tenance provided by the owner. Maintenance of other equip- 
ment would be the responsibility of the operating command. 
After the reorganization of aerospace defense assets that 
command would be SAC. Contractor support should be mini- 
mized and concentrated on specialized equipment. The 

■ Prototype Mission Operai ions Center (PMOC) should be lo- 
cated in Cheyenne Mountain and manned by ADC personnel. It 
would provide command and control of the system to include 
mission planning and targeting. The Space Detection and 
Tracking System (SPADATS) and the ADCOM Intelligence Center 
would provide surveillance and intelligence support to the 



ASAT requirements were more com- 
pletely defined in late 1979 uhen preliminary results of 
the Phase II ASAT Requirements Study begun in March tease 
available. They were briefed to General Hill on SI October. 
Following 'are the briefing's major points as summarised in 
a DCS/Plans Background Paper prepared for CISCAD: 8 ! 

1. Soviet space systems make a significant contribu- 
tion to the flexibility, efficiency, and redundancy of .- 
Soviet aned forces. Low altitude spade systems (electronic 
intelligence, photo, ocean surveillance, etc.) make the most 
significant contribution. 

. 2. For most of their space systems^the. Soviets Jiave,,.,,., 
"terrestrial lack-up capabilities" to perform the' same mis- 

3. United'States ASAT should be employed under the 
JCS Unified and Specified command structure. 

4. United States commanders responsible for deploying 
ASAT require an integrated capability: the ability to lo- 
cate, identify, track, and target satellites, 

5. Rules for -engaging foreign space vehicles should 
parallel those currently recogniied for ships or aircraft 
in international waters and airspace. 

In early. December, General Hill responded to Admiral (Ret,),.'"'. 
D. J. Murphy, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy ■. 
Review, and the task force director, that he was impressed .'.^ 
by the magnitude of the effort and the diversity of the "' 
research and analysis which went into the study. /The CINCAD 
commented that he was in full agreement with one 'of the' 
points of the briefing, that ASAT should be under a single 
commander; but he also noted that the study itself seemed 
to contradict that policy since it had been concerned with 
developing operational requirements, a responsibility nor- 
mally that of a service or command, fie thought "... un- 
certainty in the mission assignment for ASAT. .' ." might 
.accomt^for^the^sifuation, but added the Unified Command 
Plan clearly isignel''Tplc'e*laefense"to'ADCOM, and tradi- .... 
tionally that mission had.included ASAT (e.g., CINCAD had^- 
ex£LDd.s^d_c2erationa? •* rt ntwil of Program 437L)j_[ ~ 



1. ADCOM Special Order G-20S, 19 Oct 78, This order 
superceded SO G-180, 28 September 1979. 

2. ADCOM SO G-mY,' 30 Nov 79; ADCOM SO G-240, 30 Nov 79. 

3. ADCOM SO G-226, 21 Nov 79. 

4. Air Force Regulation 23-9, "Organization and Mission- 
Field, "Aerospace Defense Center," 1 Dec 79 (Doc 1). The 
reader should be aware that while the regulation carries the 
1 December publication date, it was still at the printers at 
the end of the year and was not distributed to the field until 
Marcfii3980:.-s ■.-.-,. .; • •? 

■ *'S:. Msg (tl)yJCS (J-S) to CINCNORAD, "NORAD Agreement 
.Renewal," 19/131'OZ Jul 79. 

'.6-!' Msg (U), NORAD (J-S) to JCS, "NORAD Recommended 
Changes to NORAD Agreement," 01/lS«Z'Aug 79 (Doc 2); Msg 
(C-Revw-99), CINCNORAD/CD to NDBQ, Ottawa, "toendine CDS,- _, 
CINCNORAD Jiscus£ions,"_31/;[ei!51 Jul 79. 

v.-y.-r.-. ■-.■■i/'-: •■' . r The.- 

'-CtrBotaTis 'had teeS^n^celStanir^tTffoft s^o"of tain" "" '" 
such access, and the deputy CINCNORAD, General Lewis, 'cred- 
ited General Hill's "tenacious efforts" for achieving this 
partial victory. General Lewis told his government that he 
thought the new NORAD agreement should note the need for 
Canadian officers to have access to all classified informa- 
tion needed^tp carry out their responsibilities. ADCOM DCS/ 
Plans officers were in complete agreement that unless the 3 
Canadians were given access to space systems capabilities, 
future joint planning would be impossible. (Msg (C-Revw-99), 
CISCNORAD/CD to NDHQ, Ottawa, "Impending CDS-CINCNORAD Dis- 
cussions," 31/204SZ Jul 79; Staff Action Memorandum (U), 
"Canadian Access to U.S. Military Space Related Security In- 
formation," Col W. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, 
ADCOM, to XPD et al, 9 Nov 79.) 

7. Msg, (S-Revw-99), CINCNORAD (CD) to NDHQ, Ottawa 
(ADM POL), "Renewal of NORAD Agreement," 13/22452 Nov 79 
(Doc 3). 

8. ADC- SO G-l, i Dec 79. ' 

9. Nancy Johnson, "NORAD Chisf Gen Hill to Retire," • 
Colorado Springs Sun, 2S Aug 79. 

10, Msg, (S/DG-C 19 Sep 81/Decl 19 Sep 85), SecState to 
AMEMBASSY Ottawa, "CINCNORAD Billet," 19/2318Z Sep 79 (Doc 4). 

11. Msg, (C-ADS 21 Sep 81), AMEMBASSY Ottawa to Sec- 

. State, "CINCNORAD Billet," 21/1614Z Sep 79; Msg (C-GDS 15 Dec 
85) SecState to AMEMBASSY Ottawa, "Announceient of Appoint- 
ment, .. .," 1S/1858Z Dec 79; Msg (C-Revw 00), AMEMBASSY 
Ottawa to SecState, "CINCNORAD Billet," 28/2O09Z Dec 79 [Doc 
5); CoMfen't'byiLt Gen' K.' £.' Lewis, CD, in norning staff . , 

■.'Be"etiiig_ 28_S^_79 [historian in. attendance)-.. .•-=&*■:, :.-; '■■■' 

12. Msg (S/DG-C 10 Oct 81/Decl 10 Oct 85), froa Sec- 
State to AMEMBASSY,' Ottawa, "Meeting- of Secretary Brown , and 
Canadian Minister McKinnon," 10/19002 Oct 79.' 

13. "Hart Opposes 3-Star General at NORAD," Colorado 
Springs' Gazette Telegraph, 27 Nov 79; Msg (U), Hq AFSINC, 
Kelly AFB to AIG"50S7" Ti AT News Service Release," 21/19052 
Dec, 79. " ■' '_ "~" " ""• '.* "■.'" 

14. Assumption of command of Aerospace Defense Center 
by ADC Special Order G-3, 28 Dec 79; assumption of command of 
ADCOM (specified) by ADCOM SO G-26S, 28 Dec 79; and assump- 
tion' of counand of NORAD by NORAD SO G-13S, 28 Dec 79. All 
were effective.,! Jan 80. Biography of Lt Gen James V. Hart- 
inger (Doc 6). .,.,-.„ . ; 

15. For discussion of the development of the reorgani- 
zation study and planning to the end of 1978 see History of 
ADCOM (S-Revw 31 Dec 99), 1977-78, pp 6-24. 

16. Hist of ADCOM, 1977-78" (S-RevW 31 Dec 99), p 22 
(material used S-Revw 98); Msg (U), AFSSO USAF/PA to CINCPAC/ 
CS, "Air Defense and Surveillance Realignment," for Gen Bos- 
well from Gen Greenleaf; 04/2232Z Jan 79; Msg (S/DG-C-24 Dec 
80/Decl 24 Dec 84), AMEMBASSY Wellington to SecState, "Reor- 
ganization of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance and Warning 
Systems," 22/0307Z Dec 78; Msg (C-Decl 20 Dec 84), OSDAO 
London to SecState, "Reorganization of USAF Air Defense and 
Surveillance and Warning Systems," 27/1714Z Dec 78; Msg 

(S/DG-C-Z1 Feb 81/Decl 21 Feb 85), AMEMBASSY Ankara to Sec- 
State, "Roles .and Mission of SAC," 21/11452 Feb 79; Msg (S/ 
riG-C-Zl Feb 81/Decl 21 Feb 8S), AHEMBASSY Wellington to Sec- 
State, "Roles and Missions of the Strategic Air Command," 
22/04052 Feb 79; Msg (S/DG-C-13 Mar 81/Decl 13 Mar 85), Sec- 
State to AMEMBASSY Canberra, Rome, Ankara, Copenhagen, -Uin- 

. don, Ottawa* ■Reykjavik,- Seoul, Wellingtony'et'-al, ^Reorgani'-""' 
zation of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance7Farning Systems,", 
14/00272 Mar_79. (S-Deci 15 Dec 84) ADCOM recommended the 
Philippines and Morocco also be notified of the proposed re- 
organization since space surveillance and warning sites would 
soon be established in those countries. Hq USAF replied that 
such discussions would be premature and should be conducted 

' in the normal course of events leading to arrangements for 
manning sites in those countries. (Msg (S/DG-C-15 Dec 80/ 
'Decl 15 Dec 84), AD'COM/XP to.OSAF/XOXX, "Reorganization of , ,^ 
USAF Air Defense and Surveillance and Warning Systems," 19/-' ^ 

. 21102 Dec 78; Msg (S/DG-C-15 Dec 80/Decl 15 Dec 84), Hq USAF/ 
XO to Hq ADCOM/XP, "Reorganization of USAF Air Defense and 
Surveillance arid Warning Systems," 18/14252 Jan 79.) 

17. Hist of ADC0M,fl977-'7J (S-Rev» 31 Dec 99), p 22 
(material used S-Revw 31 Dec 98); Msg (C-Decl 2 Jan 85), 
AMEMBASSY Canberra to SecState, "Reorganization of USAF Air 
Defense and Surveillance and Warning Systems," 02/04532 Jan 
79; Msg (U), CINCPAC to AFSSO USAF/PA, "ADCOM Realignment," 
05/04462 Jan 79; Msg (S/DG-C-19 Jan 81/Decl 19 Jan 85), AH- 
EMBASSY Canberra to SecState, "Reorganization . . .," 19/ 
-.0530Z-Jan*-79p-Msg«(S-Revw 26 Jan 99); AMEMBASSY -Canberra to'"" 
SecState, "Reorganization . . .," 26/05592 Jan 79; Msg (C- 
Decl 31 Jan- 80)y SecState- to AMEMBASSY Canberra, "Reorgani- 
zation . . .,." 27/0002 Jan 79; Msg (S-Revw 31 Dec 99), Hq ' 
USAF/XOX to HQ PACAF/2P, "Reorganization . . ,," 09/18152 Feb 
79; Msg (S-DG-C-13 Mar 81/Decl 13 Mar 85), SecState to AM- 
EMBASSY Canberra et al^, "Reorganization . . .," 14/00272 Mar 
79; Msg (S-Revw 2roct 99), 5DSCS, Hooiera AS to Hq ADCOM/DOF,* 
"Reorganization," 29/0250Z Oct 79; Msg (S-Revs 8 Kov 99), 
5DSCS, Woomera AS, to Hq ADCOM/DOF, "Reorganization," 08/ 
0510Z Nov 79. . 

' 18. Msg (S/DG-C-22 Dec 80/Decl 22, Dec 84), AMEMBASSY, 
Ottawa 'to' SecState; "Reorganization . . .," 22/16452 Dec 78 
(Doc 7); Msg (S/DG-C-22 Dec 80/Decl 22 Dec 84), AMEMBASSY, 
Ottawa' to SecState, "Reorganization . . .," 23/00052 Dec 78 
(Doc 8). 

19. Hsg (C-Oecl 8 Jan 85) SecState to AMEMBASSY, 
Ottawa, "Reorganization . . .," 08/2019Z Jan 79, (Doc 9); Msg 
(C-GDS 11 Jan 84), State 010645, SecState to AMEMBASSY, 
Ottawa, "Reorganization . . .," 13/1850Z Jan 79 (Doc 10); 
Hsg (C-Decl 16 Jan 85) USDAO, Ottawa, ^to '.SecState, "Reorgani- 
■zation'-i ':-'"•;," 16/22332 Jan 79(Doc 11). 

Msg (S-Revw 26 Jan 00), USDAO, Ottawa, to SecState, 
, . .," 26/205Z Jan 79 (Doc 12). 

21. Ibid.; Hsg fS-GDS 6 Feb 85), SecState to AMEMBASSY, 
Ottawa, "Reorganization . . .," 08/07S0Z Feb 79 (Doc 13). 

■ ; 22. -.*g: ; (S r Reywl5..Feb'"00),'.'uSDAO, Ottawa, to- Hq USAF/ 
CC/PA/XO/^Reorgani-ation . . -. ,"15/18472 Feb 79 (Doc 14)'. 

23. ' ltr-(S/DG-C-3 Mar Sl/Decl 8 Mar 85), Gen D. C. 
Jones, Chairman, JCS, to'Adairal R.' H. Falls, Chief of the ' 
Defence Staff, NDIIQ, n.s., 8 Mar 79 (Doc IS). . 

24. Hist of ADCOM (S-Revw 31 Dec 99), 1977-78, pp 20-21 
(material used S-Revw-98). 

25. Meeting Minutes (U) Second Combined Air Defense 
Reorganization Planning Conference, . 9-11 JanJjL(Doc*-16-). *"■*""* 

■ -^26. Ibid; 

27. Talking/Discussion Paper on ADCOM Reorganization 
(U), prepared'by Lt Col-D.-S. Robinson, XPXP, authenticated by 
Brig Gen W. E. Lindeian,' DCS/Plans and Programs, 28 Feb 79 
(Doc.17). 9 . 4 

28. Msg (0) Hq : SAC/DPR to Hq AFMPC/MPCR, "Aerospace De- 
fense Reorganization," 23/2030Z Jan 79; Msg (U) Hq ADCOM/DPX 
to Hq AFMPC/MPCR, "Aerospace Defense Reorganization," 25/ 
2030Z Jan 79; Msg (B) Hq AFMPC/MPCR to Hq SAC, info ADCOM, 
"Aerospace Defense Reorganization," 3G/1715Z Jan. 79; Msg- (U) 
Hq AFMPC/MPCY to Hq ADCOM/DPX, '"ADCOM Reorganization," 21/ 
Z0002 Mar 79. , . . . 

29. Memo for the Record (S-Decl 31 Dec 93), Col 0. H. 
Koraser, Exec. Asst, Office of the Vice Chief of Staff, USAF, 
"Proposed Reorganization of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance 
-Warning Resources," 28 Feb 79 (signed as approved by Gen 
Allen) (Doc 18), 

30. Memorandum for Gens Allen and Hill, (U) "ADCOM," 
from Undersecretary of the Air Force Dr. Hans Mark, 22 Feb 79 
(Doc 19). Earlier documentation of the difficulty Dr, Mark 

was having accepting wholeheartedly the reorganization can be 
found in Hist of ADCOM, 1977-78, pp 19-20; Memorandum for Lt 
Gen William Creech (U), from Dr. Hark, 20 Oct 77 (Doc 20); 
and Memo for: General Anderson (U), from Lt Col Owen Wormser, 
CVAR.Hq USAF, "ADCOM.Jteorganization Proposal.,". 29 Ajig v 7J,^<.„ 
(DootJIJv ■-•-■v-v -ww,- .■-■-;--■-• '■"■'■ -■■" ■-•■■• " ;.' 

31. Ltr (S-Decl 21 Feb 85) Gen J. E. Bill, CINCAD, to ' 
Gen Lew Allen, CofS, USAF, n.d., 22 Feb 79 (transmitted by 
DACOM IN secure teletype network) (Doc 22) . ■ 

32. Memo for the Record (S-Decl 31 Dec 90), Col 0. H. 
Wormser, Exec Asst, Office of the vice Chief of Staff, USAF, 
"Proposed Reorganization of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance/ 
Warning Resources," 28 Feb 79 (approved by CSAF' Gen Lew' : '^ 
Allen) (Doc 18), ■;,.-,;„■. . ... ' f' : : '•:■...'"' :: ' 

33. Ibid. \ : '' .'■.■■■ 

34/ LtT*(S-Decl'31 Dec 90), Gen Lew Allen, CSAF, to Gen 
James E. Hill, CMCNORAD/ADCOM, n.i., 19 Mar 79 (Doc 23). 

35. Ltr (It), Gen James E. Hill, CIMORAD/ADCOM, to Gen 
Lew Allen, CSAF, n.s., 16 Apr 79 (Doc 24). 

36. Ltr (U), Col R. .E. Magnusson, Dir of Air Defense Op- 
erations ^D00),,^o^C0M/JJ04 sand, DOZydlTemporarH"^^ 

organization Office," 8 Jan 79; Ltr, Brig Gen K. E. Lindeaan',, . 
DCS/Plans and Programs; to all' DCSs and Chiefs of Special Staff' 
' Elements, "Reorganization Working Group," 14 Dec 78. 

37. ADCOM Programming Plan 79-3 (0), "Aerospace Defense 
Reorganization," S Mar 79, pp 1-5; D-3 - D-8 (Doc 2S). 

38. Msg (S-Decl 27 Feb 85), Hq TAC/XP to Hq ADCOM/XP, ' '$ . 
"DraftPPL 79-1 Aerospace Defense Reorganization," 28/1307Z Feb 
79; Msg (U) Hq SAC/XP to Hq ADCOM/XP, "Aerospace Defense Re- 
organization PPian Vol I," 2Z/2240Z Mar 791 Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/ 
XP to Hq SACXP, "Aerospace Defense Reorganization, " 02/22 15Z 
Apr '79 CDOC26); Msg.(U), Hq SAC/XP to Hq 1K0M7XP7 n.s., "W~~ ' 
17402 Apr 79. ' 

39. Msg (U), Ho USAF/XO to Ho ADCOM/CS, XP, "ADCOft'Re- 
alignment--Revision of Mission Directives," 22/1845Z Mar 79. 

40. Msg (U), OSAF/OIP to ALMAJCOM, "Public Affairs 
Guidance for Base Closures and Realignments," 28/18002 Mar 
79; Msg (U), OSAF/OIP to ALMAJCOM, "State by State Summary," 
28/18102 Mar 79. (11) Later, the Air Force's decision not to an- 
flounce prior to 29 March that ADCOM was a candidate for dis- 
establishment and the headquarters building for closure was 
challenged in federal court ( Willett v. Brown ) . The case 
will be examined later in this chapter. As explained by Ms 
Antonia Chayes, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Man- 
power, Reserve Affairs, and Installations, to Senator Gary 
Hart (D-Colo) , in hearings before the Senate Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Military Construction, in May, the Air Force 
did not do so as a policy matter because of on-going sensi- 
tive consultations with foreign governments, and technically 
'because it had been determined the ADCOM headquarters (the ': 
*Chidlaw Building). was not a military installation as defined 
in 10 U.S.C., Section 2687). There was also, she said, :'."'■ 
>•" . . .some legislative history to the effect that Candida- .'•• 
■cy and decision can be announced concurrently, according to 
the wording of 2687 . . ',", and "... the Air Force felt, 
quite secure . . . and, in no way, regards itself as violat- 
ing the law." (Stenographic Transcription of. Hearings, Sub- 
committee on Military Construction, Senate Armed Services ■ 
Committee, 1 May 79, p. 54.) 

. 41. Ltr (U), Gen J. E. Hill, CIHCNORAD, to all DCSs'--'- 
ssandJpecial-StafL Elements, -■^0Mi!eorg3ni:ation,"'-29 5 Ma? , ''* , ~''' 
79 \(Doc 27); Msg (U), CINCMORAD to AIG 7142, "ADCOM Re- 
organization," 29/1501Z Mar ?9- (Doc 28). 

42. Analysis of public reaction from news articles ap- 
pearing in local Colorado Springs newspapers. A collection 
of articles from the Colorado Springs Gazette Tele graph and 
Colorado Springs Sun pertaining to the proposeiTphaseout of 
ADCOM for the yearT979' is included as (Doc 29). 

43.. Ray Potter, "Realtors Riding Crest of Springs 
Housing Boom," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph , 15 Apr 79. 

., ■. .44.'. Ann Imse,-. "Figures Defy ADCOM Job loss," Colorado 
Springs Sun, 3 Apr 79. 

45. Michael D. Green, "ADCOM Task Force Named," 
Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph , 11 Apr 79. 

46. Transcript (U) of tape recorded at the meeting by 
ADC0M/0I, "Air Force/Colorado Springs Public Meeting," 20 Apr 
79, pp 3-12, (Doc 30). Mr. John Dennison, ADC0M/H0, was also 
present at the Public Meeting. 

47. Ibid. 

48. Ibid., pp 12-28. 

49. Ibid., pp-32-38, 46-52 passim . 

51. Ibid., pp 38, 46, 

5Z. Ibid., pp 54-56.' 

53. Ltr (U), William J. Hybl, Attorney at Law, to Gen 
J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD, n.s., 26 Apr 79, with 1 Atch: ADCOM 
Task Force Report, 25 April 1979 (Doc 31). 

• , 54. . Hearings, before the. Subcommittee "on Military Con- 
struction Appropriations, Committee on Appropriations, House 
of Representatives, 96th Congress, First Session, "Base Clo- 
sures and Realignments Proposed by Department of Defense, 
Fiscal Year 1979,"pp 165-173 (Representative Kramer's ques- 
tions and the Air Force's answers are included pp 685-687.); 
"Kramer Defends ADCOM," Colorado Springs Sim, 26 Apr 79. The 
House Committee on Appropriations Report on the 1980 Appropri- 
ations Bill carried a factual explanation 'of the Air Force's 
action,, and the Air Force was lauded for its responsiveness 
'to the Committee's original request to look into the matter of 
..overlap .between-ADCOM, .SAC,-and-TACeven*though"it>meant'a>Te'-* il: 
duction. in the Air Force's structure. (House Report. 96.-^5,0, 
"Report of tbe Committee on Appropriations, DOD Appropriations 
Bill FY-80,"'20Sep 79.)- ; . ... -. 

55, Ltr (U), R. W. Gutmann, Director, Logistics and Com- 
munications Division, United States Generai Accounting Office, 
to the Honorable Ken Kramer, House of Representatives, n.s.,... 
25 Jun 79 {Doc 32). 

56. "Hart Wary of NORAD Change," Colorado Springs Sun, 
19 Jan 79, p 1; "Review of ADCOM Reduction Promised," Colorado 
Springs Sun, 28 Jan 79, p 4, 

' 57. ' Glenn Drban, "Hart Doubts ADCOM Return," Colorado 
Springs Gazette Telegraph , 18 Apr "9; 

58. Atch (0) Transcript of Hearings before Subcommittee 
on Military Construction, Senate Aimed Services Committee, 1 May 
79, to Memo, Lt Col J. Graham, SAC/LLL, to ADCOM/HO, 24 Aug 79. 

59. Report No. 96-209, Report by Senator Hart to Ac- 
company Senate Sill 1319, Military Construction Authorization, 
FY-80, 96th Congress, 1st Session, 12 Jun 79, pp 5-6; Michael D. 

Green, "Air Force Defends ADCOM Decision," Colorado Springs 
Gazette Telegraph , 18 May 79; Allen Cromley, "Sen Hart Urges 
Study of Defense Requirements," Colorado Springs Sun, IS May 
79. Hart's office.explainedvto:ADeOM that while tie state- 
ment might generate just another study, it night also create 
enough Congressional pressure to produce more definitive OSD 
policy guidance. This might, in turn, produce procurement 
funds for modernization. (SSS (U), Brig Gen X. E. Lindeman, 
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to CC et sl_, "Proposed State- 
ment by Senator Hart," 22 May 79.) 

60. Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, 30 Dec 79, 

P B-1-. • r ,e . ■ ■■ ~T~ . , >. • ,,. 

61. 32 C.F.'R. /Code of Federal Regulation/ Section * ! ' 
. 214.7, as quoted/in Memorandum/Opinion and Order Granting. Re-. ! '; 

quest for Preliminary- Injunction and Denying MotibnHo;Dis-\5 .k 
"miss or for Summary Judgment in Civil Action No 79-451. (Wil-jf 
lett et al vs. Brown et al), United States District Court.' for 
the District of Colorado, 23 May 79, p 5 (Doc 33). 

62. Study (tl), "Environmental Impact Assessment for the 
Proposed Reorganization of the USAF Air Defense and Survcil- ■ 
lance Resources," DAF April 1978, p ¥-1, (Doc 34). ! 

■* * ^sr'reaTTTOi-ir"^^"" ' '" **'*"*" ""*** " 

64. "Negative Determination for Proposed Reorganization 
of USAF Aerospace Defense Forces," Col F. J. Smith, Chairman, 
Hq USAF Environmental Protection Committee, 17 May 78 (Doc 


65. Ibid. 

66. "Supplement to Negative Determination and Environ- 
mental Assessment for Proposed Reorganization of USAF Aero- 
space Defense Forces," (U) Col Francis J. Smith, Chairman, Hq 
USAF Environmental Protection Committee, 7 'Feb 79 (Doc 36); 
"Supplement No 2 .to Negative Determination . . .," (U) Col 

. Francis J,, Smith, .Chairman, Hq USAF Environmental Protection 
' Committee,' IS Mar 79 (Doc 37). 

67. Msg (S-Decl 1 Mar 84), CINCAD to Hq USAF/PA/LE, 
"Environmental Analysis . . .," 01/2100Z Feb 79 (Doc 38). 

(C), Ho USAF/LE to CINCAD/CS, "Environmental 
." 13/1830Z Mar 79 (Doc 39), 

69. Summons, Civil Suit, Richard N. Killett et al v. 
Harold Brown et al, Civil Case No. 79-F-4S1, in the United 
States District Court for the District of Colorado, 17 Apr 

79 (Doc 40). . .. ■..,,.-,. -.■.....-.-„.■-■.; 

70. "Suit Disputes ADC Shutdown," Colorado Springs Sun, 
19 Apr 79; 

71. Answer, Civil Suit Willett et al_ v. Brown et al_, 
Civil Case Ho 79-F-4S1, in the UnitedTTtates District Court 
for the District of Colorado, no date (Doc 41) 

72. Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Request for 
Preliminary '.'Injunction and Denying Motion to Dismiss or for '- 

"SuraarySJudgment, Suit of Willett v. Brown, Civil Action No. 
79-F-4S1'; in the United States District Court for the Dis- 
trict of Colorado, signed by Judge Sherman Finesilver, 23 May 

■ 79 (Doc 33);? (D) The Chidlaw Building was constructed ex- 
pressly'as a headquarters for a major air command in 1962 and 
early 1963, being dedicated in March 1963. It was entirely 
windowless and special fallout protection and security alarms 
and shelters were provided. (Historian's note.) 

73. Memorandum to General Moore (ADCOM/CV) (U), "Wil- 
lett vs. Brown," Col J. D. Mazza, "JAG, 23 May 79; "ADCOM 

. Ruling^elayed^Colpf^do Springs Sun,. 15,Jun-.79«u-. v .. -*-*" 

-- 74. -Memorandum of Points -and Authorities in Support of 
Motion- to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judg- 
ment, Suit- of Willett v. Brown, Case So. 79-F-4S1, in the 
United States -District Court for the District of Colorado, by 
Joseph Dolan, U.S. Attorney, 18 Jul 79. (Doc 42); Report (0), 
"Formal Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Reorgani- ^ 
zation of the DSAF Air Defense and Surveillance/tfarning Re- 
sources," 29 Jun 79, revised 11 Jul 79, prepared by Hq AFESC, 
Hq MAC, Hq TAC, and Hq SAC. (Doc 43). (U) Concern for the 
effect the injunction was having on personnel actions with 
regard to the closure of ADCOM caused the Air Force 'to motion 
the Court.on 23..July.that it be allowed to issue letters of '■ ' 
preliminary offer of transfer to ADCOM civilian employees and 
to be able to use the'negative responses received- for plan- 
ning purposes.* The Court agreed to modify the injunction of 
23 May to allow the issuance of preliminary offers of trans- 
fer. Affirmative responses to such offers were to be con- 
sidered for planning purposes only and employees could at a 
later date decide to decline. .The files of those responding 
negatively and those that did not respond did not need to be 
sent to the gaining commands for consideration. (Motion to 
Amend Order, Suit of Willett v. Brow), Case No. 79-F-451, in 
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, 

by Joseph Dolan, U.S. Attorney, 23 Jul 79 (Doc 44); Pro- 
posed Supplemental Order, Suit of Willett v. Brown, Case No. 
79-F-4S1, in the United States District Court for the Dis- 
trict of Colorado, 24 Jul 79 (Doc 45). 

75. Ltr (U), Col J. W. Fahrsiey, JA/ADCOM, to CV et si, 
"Litigation: ADCOM Reorganization," 20 Jul 79 (Doc 4£J7 "~ 
Plaintiffs Brief in Opposition to Defendants! Motion to dis- 
miss, or, in the Alternative for Suirjnary Judgiseat, Suit 
Willett v. Brown, Case No. 7S-F-4SI, in the United States 
District Court for the District of Colorado, i Aug '9, o ! 
(Doc 47). 

: 76. Ibid., ppVlG-. ■/ ' "' '"^j,,' :' :. 

■ 77. . Defendants'. Seply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to 
Motion to Disoissoryin the Alternative for. Sunaary Judg- 
ment, Suit Sillett.v. Brown, Case So. 79-F-4S1,- in the United 
States District Court for the District of Colorado, Joseph 
Dolan, U.S. Attorney, 8 Aug 79, pp 8-9 (Doc 48). 

78. Minute Order, Suit Willett v. Brown, Case No. 79- 
F-451, in the United States District Court for the District, 
of ^Colorado,* 13 :Aug 79 (Doc 49). . .- J- 

"■"Stilt ,tdiKeep" T ADCOS[ Will Continue," Colorado ■ 
Springs Sun, 21 Aug- 79V - ■■.■- ' ' "-" "' 

80. Order, Suit Willett v. Brown, Case No.' 79-F-451, 
in the United States District Court for the District of 
Colorado, signed by Judge Sherman Finesilver, 21 Aug 79 
(Doc SO) . * ^ 

81.' "ADCOM Suit Dismissed, " Colorado Springs Gazette 
Telegraph , 22 Aug' 79. 

■ 82. Msg (0)-, Hq USAF/PAX to Hq ADCOM/XP et al, "AD- 
COM, Reorganization,,"., 23/13S1Z Aug 79 (Doc 51). •.. •- •-. . ■ 

83. ADCOM PPlan 79-1 (U), 5 March 79 (draft) (Doc 
25). The final plan published in September showed a slight 
dip for TAC, to 16,222, and no change for AFCS. 

84. Ltr (U), Mai Gen F. A. Haeffner, DCS/Plans, TAC, 
to Maj Gen W. C. Moore, VC, ADCOM, n.s., 15 May 79 (Doc 52). 

85. Ltr (U), Maj Gen W. C. Moore, VC, ADCOM, to Maj 
Gen F, A. Haeffner, DCS/Plans, TAC, n.s., 29 May 79 (Doc S3); 

Ltr (U), Maj Gen R. K. Fye, USA, to ADCOM/DP, "Support for 
TAC ADCOM," 30 Hay 79 (Doc 54). 

86. Msg (II), CINCAD/CC to Hq TAC/CC and Hq AFCS/CC, 
"ADCOM, Reorganization Implementation Date," -3 1 / 1 9 4 SZ" Hay:' 7-9 v: ■-- 

'■ (Doc : 'S'5)''.'"" """'". "" 

' 87. Msg ~(U), TAC/CC to CINCAD/CC, "ADCOM Reorganiza- 
tion," 06/13302 Jun 79 (Doc S6). 

88. Msg (li), AFCS/CC to CINCAD/CC, "ADCOM Reorganiza- 
tion Impleaeatation Date," 04/2320Z Jun 79 (Doc 57). 

89. Minutes of Hq ADCOM Reorganization Working Group -■; 
■ Meeting 11 Jun 79, 18 Jun 79, and 25 Jun 79! Msg (II), USAF/" 

PAX to ABCOM/CS et al, "Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning 
Realignment," 15/70452 Jun 79 (Doc 58); Ltr (U), Lt Col l- H. 
Curl, Asst CS, ADCOM, to ALL DCSs and SSEs, "ADCOM Reorgani- 
zation Belay," 18 Jun 79' (Doc 59). 

90, Briefing (U), "Results of ADCOM Reorganization Con- 
ference, 25-27 Jul 79, presented by Col I. W. Jensen, DCS/ 
Plans (Plans, Prgas, and Rqnts), Hq ADCOM at CINC's Horning 
staff meeting, 1 Aug "9 (Doc 60). 

^Vv-'9kv,Msg-»(U);'Hq-ADCffiI7XP't6'Hq'TAt/XP;'1irS?iC/XP7ail'd"'' i '' 
Hq AFCS/XP, "Reorganization PPlan Concurrence," 31/20302 Aug : 
79 "(Doc 61); Msg (U) Hq SAC/XPX to Hq ADCOM/XPX, "Aerospace 
Defense Reorganization PPlan 79-3, Vol I, dtd 1 Sep 79," 
04/15002 Sep 79 (Doc 62); Msg (U), Hq TAC/XPP to Hq ADCOM/ 
XPX, "Aerospace Defense Reorganization PPlan 79-3, Vol I, 
1 Sep 79," 40/1247Z Sep 79 (Doc 63); Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/XP 
to Hq OSAF/PAXSA, "Programing Plan 79-1 . . . Monthly Report? 
for October 1979," 09/15452 Nov 79 (Doc 64). 

.92. Msg (U), Hq USAF/PAX to Hq ADCOM/XP, "ADCOM Reor- 
ganization," 23/13512 Aug 79;. Msg (U), Hq tiSAF/PA to CIKCAD/ 
CC, "Implementation Date for the ADCOM Reorganization,". 30/ • , 
19002 Aug. n (Doc 65). •'■■■■ 

" 93. Minutes of Hq ADCOM Reorganization Working Group, 
4 Sep 79 and 17 Sep 79; Msg (1!) , Hq SAC/XPX to Hq (JSAF/PAXSA 
et al, "Programming Plan 79-3 (ADCOM Reorganization Monthly 
Report for September 1979),"11/15002 Oct 79. On I November 
the SAC office became an Operating Location tor DCS/Space 
Surveillance and Missile Warning Systems, Hq SAC. (Ltr, (U) 
Maj Gen II. E. Cooper, ADCOM CS to All DCS and SSEs, "Estab- 
lishment of Hq SAC Operating Location Colorado Springs (OICS) , 
1 Nov 79 (Doc 66).) 

94, ADCOM SO G-20S, 19 Oct 79; DAF SO GA-65, 10 Oct 79; 
Msg (U), CINCAD to AIG 722S/CC et al, "Farewell Message from 
CINCAD," 26/1500Z Sep 79 (Doc 6TJ";Tisg (»), Hq ADCOM/DO to 
20AD et al, "Message of Appreciation," 28/171SZ Sep 79 (Doc 

95. ADCOM SO G-182, 28 Sep 79; ADC SO (C) G-179, 28 Sep 
79; Msg (U) CINCAD/CV to 2CS et al, "ADCOM Reassignment Action,' 
28/1925Z Sep 79 (Doc 69). 

96. ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79; ADCOM PPlan 79-1 (U), 
"Aerospace Defense Reorganization," 1 Sep 79, pp D-7, D-8 
(Doc 70). 

f ■••97. ■;,ADCOM|SO;G-20S;-19'Oct IS'l DAF SO GA-68,'16 Oct 79; 

' ADCOM ;PPlsn ; 79-l-(U), "Aerospace Defense Reorganization," - 
1 Sep!79, p D-6-(Doc 70) .. Included as Doc 71 is. the "Transfer 
Agreement Between Aerospace Defense Coaaand and Strategic Air 
Corjiaandtfor Peterson AFB, CO., and the "Menorandus of Agree- 
ment' Between NORAD/ADCOM and SAC for Support of the KORAD/ 
ADCOM Staff and the NORAD Cheyenne Mountain Complex." 

98. Msg (U), CINCSAC/CS to CINCAD/CS, "ADCOM Units 
Transfer Dates," 11/15302 Oct 79 (Doc 72). The 10th AERODS 
was transferred 1 Nov (ACCOM SO G-206, 23 Oct 79). 

,.. \ 99. -Msg-(a>,-.CINGAD/eS»to»OISCSAC-/CS-- ,, ADC0M , llnits"' '" 
Transfer Dates," 16/2210Z Oct 79 (Doc 73). 

100. Msg (0), Hq SAC/XPM to Hq ADCOM/XPM, "Transfer of 
ADCOM Units to .SAC," 29/2100Z Oct 79;. ADCOM SO G-241, 30 Kov 

101. Report (S-Rem-98), "Proposal for: A Reorganiza- 
tion of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance Warning Resources, 
Jan 78, p IV-3, (Doc 39, Chap I, Hist of ADCOM, 1977-78). 

102. Atch (S-Revw-98), "NC0C Staff Comments ffo Jan 78 
draft Proposal for Reorganization of Aerospace Defense Forces7, 
•to-ltr,-Brig'Gen-Dv K-.-Kinn, Commander NORAD Combat' Oper'a'tidris 
Center, to N/XP (ADCOM), 9 Feb 78 (Doc 42, Hist of ADCOM, .1.977; 
78). Ftnt 49, Chap 1 of that history references documents 'from 
other staff agencies expressing concern about various parts of 
the reorganization proposal. 

103. Msg (S-Decl 86), JCS 3816, JCS to CINCAD, "The Re- 
organization . . .", 16/1817Z Feb 78 (Doc 46, Chap I, Hist of 
ADCOM, 1977-78). 

m. Hist of ADCOM fS-Revk' 31 Dec 99), 1977-78, p 17, 
Material used (S-Revw-97). 

105. Msg (S-Re™-97), CINCAD to JCS, "Reorganization 

, , .", 08/15092 Mar 78 (Doc 48, Chap I,.Hist o£*At)COM,- lOT*-^ 
78). ' - ■■ 

106. Hist of ADCOH (S-Reira 31 Dec 99), 1977-78, pp 21-23, 
material used (S-Revw-98). 

107." Minutes of Second' Combined Air Defense Reorganiza- 
tion Planning Conference, 9-11 Jan 79, pp 7-8 (Doc 16). 

108. Handwritten effluents by General Hill .at. bottom of ^ 
SSS (S), Col K. R. Kerity.Asst DCS Plans and Programs,' ADCOM,*-'" 
to A/DO et al, "Retention of Advocacy Sole byCINCAD After 
Reorganization (Hq USAF Interface), ".27 Feb 79, with 1 Atch 
(S-Decl 31 .Dec 85) , "Discussion 1 Paper on Advocacy" (Doc 74) . 

109. Ltr (S-'Decl 21'Feb SSj, Gen J, 2, Hill, CISCNORAD 
to Gen Lew Allen, CSAF, n.s., 22 Feb 79 (Doc 22). 

110. Ltr (U), Col T. K. Jensen, Dir/Plans, Programs, and 
Requirements, ADCOM, to ADCOM Reorganization Working Group, 
"Coordination of ADCOM P-Plan," 5 Mar 79. 

„^„lllT--ADC(BI PPl-an^79-VS»Mar»79rpp:3=4'*(DbM5);"'" '****"' 

'112." Msg '(D). Hq SAC/XP to Hq ADCOM/XP, ,: . . Reorgani 
''zation P-Plani' Vol I," 22/22402 Mar 79. 

' . -.1-13. Msg \V} : r Hq' ADCOM/XP to' Hq SAC/XP, "Aerospace De'-' 
fense Reorganization," 02/22152" Apr 79. 

114. Msg (0), Hq 0SAF/X0 to Ko ADCOM/CS, XP et al, 
"ADCOM Realignment . . .", 22/184SZ Mar 79. 

115. Memorandum for the Record (S-Decl 31 Dec -85), "Pro- 
posed Reorganization of- USAF Air Defense -and Surveillance/ 

• Jarning-Resources," It Col 0;'H':'M*6'rm's'er, 'Executive Assistant, 
Office of the VCofS, USAF, 28 Feb 79 (signed and approved by - 
Gen Allen) (Doc '18). 

116. SSS (S-Decl 31 Dec 85), Brig Gen It , E. Lindeman, 
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to CS, CV, CC, "Strategic De- 
fense Advocacy Responsibilities-Post Reorganization," 26 Mar 

117. Ltr (S-Decl 31 Dec 85), Gen J. E. Hill, CIMCNORAD, 
to Gen lew Allsn, CSAF, n.s., 26 Mar 79 (Doc 7S). 

118. Ltr (U), Gen Richard Ellis, CINCSAC, to Gen Lew 
Allen, CSAF, n.s., 9 Apr 79 (Doc 76). 

119. Msg (I)), CINCAD/CV to Kq USAF/PAX, "SAC C2 Master 
Plan," 23/23032 Apr 79 (Doc 77), 

120. Ltr (U), General Lew Allen, CSAF, to Gen J. E. Hill, 
CINCN03AD, n.s., 11 Apr 79. 

121. Msg (U), Hq USAF/CV to ADCOM/CC et al, "ADCOM Re- 
organization-Organizational Responsibilities, ""09/22232 Jul 
79 (Doc 78). 

122. Briefing (U), "ADCOM Reorganization, Missions, Au- 
thorities, Responsibilities and Inter-organizational Relation-* 

.ships, presented by Lt Col Hensman, AF/XOHC, 25 Jul 79 (Doc '' 

- 79) _.,,. -...,.,. 

... 123., Minutes of Headquarters ADCOM Reorganization Work- 
ing Group Meeting. (D), 30 Apr 79. 

124. Msg (0), Hq AFMPC/MPCYXP to Hq ADCOM/DP, "ADCOM Re- 
organization," 25/18002 Apr 80. 

125. Minutes (U) of ADCOM Reorganization Conference, 14- 
16 May 79, AFMPC,' Randolph AFB, Texas, Parts II, IV, and V. 

^'^126?^iiutes (Uj'of ADCOM Reorganization Conference, '14-"" 
16 May 79, AFMPC,. Randolph AFB, Texas, "Officer Panel Min- 

127. Memorandum for the Record (U), "Briefing on Meeting 
of Command Representatives on Reorganization of ADCOM at MFC, 
14-16 May 79 ?' presented to General Hill and his staff at 
CINCs. morning staff meeting, 22 May 79 (historian in attend- * 

128.' Ltr (U), Col F. R. Nealon, DCS/Personnel , ADCOM, to 
AFMPC/MPCR, "ADCOM Realignment Manning Plan," 11 Jun 79 : 
.Memorandum. for the Record. (U) „. "Meeting..of DCS Representatives 
'to Hq' ADCOM Reorganization tlof king Group on Reorganization 
Manning. Plan Requirements ,": 29 May 79 (historian in attendance). 

129. Msg (S-Decl 30 Dec 85), Hq (JSAf/PA to Hq ADCOM/XP, 
"Air Defense Reorganization," 26/23002 Jan 79, 

130. Msg (S-Decl 31 Dec 85), CINCAD/CC to Hq DSAF/PA, 
personal for Lt Gen Greenleaf from Gen J. E. Hill, "Air De- 
fense Reorganization," 07/16302 Feb 79 (Doc 80). 

Agreement reached in Second Combined Air Defense 
ation Planning Conference, 9-11 Jan 79 (Doc 16). 

132. Msg (S-Decl 31 Dec 8S), CINCAD/CC to Hq USAF/PA, 
personal for Lt Gen Greenleaf from Gen J. E. : HUl,,"Air,.De.-. 
fence Reorganization," 07/1630Z'Feb 79 (Do'c'"80J; Ltr (S-Decl 
31 Dec 90), Gen Lew Allen, CSAF, to Gen J. E. Hill, CINC- 
NORAD/ADCOM, n.s., 19 Mar 79 (Doc 23). 

133. Ltr (U), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD/ADCOM, to Gen 
lew Allen, CSAF, n.s., 16 Apr 79 (Doc 24). 

134. Msg (U), Hq USAF/CV to ADCOM/CC et al, "ADCOM Re- 
organisation " Organizational Responsibilities," 09/22232 
Jul 79, (Doc;,78); Msg:(U), Hq USAF/MPM to Ha,.ADCOM/.XP,,"AB- 4 
COM Reorganization - . Organizational Responsibilities ,"13/ 
20302 Jul 79 (Doc 81). " . f ' .' % ,■ .'/.<. ' 

135. .Hew (II),, Brig Gen «. B. Lindeman, DCS/Plans^.and 
Programs, to XPM (Col Saunders), "52 Space Headquarters Re- 
duction," 16 Jul 79; Ltr (U), Haj Gen W. C. Moore, ADCOM/CV 
to CS et al, "Command Council Meeting," 19 Jul 79, with 1 
Atch, "XP Talking Paper with Tabs" (Doc 82); Few historians 
have the opportunity, like Thucydides had, to .write about 
events in 'which tfieyliave 'been a~participant... In this. in-, 
stance,, and to his nisfortune,--.the command historian was ■ 
.there. w One-of the_.,52 spacesj^e^from^the History ^Office .^.^ 

136. Briefing, "Results of ADCOM Reorganization. Confer- 
ence, 25-27 Jul 79, presented by Col' T. X. -Jensen, -Dir-of 
Plans, Programs, and Requirements, Hq ADCOM, it CINC's morn- 
ing staff meeting, 1 Aug 79 (historian in attendance) (Doc , 

137. General Hill's comments following above briefing, 
1 Aug 79. 

1.38. .Atchs 3 and 4 (D), "(1SAF- Itrs .'to AFMPOof '29 -Aug" ' 
and 31 Aug," to Ltr (U), Col W. R. Kenty, Assr DCS/Plans arid 
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC, "ADCOM Reorganization Personnel' and' 
Manpower Allocation," 6 Sep 79; Msg (H) CINCAD/CC to CSAF/ 
CV, "ADCOM Reorganization Implementation. Actions," 11/17202 
Sep 79 (Doc 83). 

139, Msg (U), CSAF/CV to CINCAD/CC, "ADCOM Reorganiza- 
tion Implementation Actions," 14/17402 Sep 79. 

HO. Lt r (0), Haj Gen R. C. Taylor, Director of Opera- 
tions and Readiness, DCs/Operations , Plans, and Readiness, 
Hq USAF, to AF/MPM, "Manning Priorities, ADCOM Reorganiza- 
tion," 17 Sep 79. 

141. Ltr (U), Col H. L. Fake, AFMPC Project Officer, to 
Hq ADCOM/ XP et al, "ADCOM Reorganization- -Military Personnel 
Distribution," no date ( circa 20 Sep 79 from approval signa- 
tures and dates at bottom of letter) (Doc 84). 

1976, pp 11-12, ' 

143. Msg (F0U0), CSAF/PR to CINCAD/CC, "Consolidation of 
Colorado Springs Activities," 02/1729Z Jul 76 (Doc 20, Hist 
of ADCOM, 1976).' 

144. Msg (0), CINCAD/CC to CSAF/PR, "Consolidation of 
Colorado Springs Activities," .08/1530Z Jul 76 (Doc 19, Hist 
of ADCOM, 1976). 

145. Ltr (U), Gen Daniel James, Jr., to Gen David C. 
Jones,. 28 Jul 76 (Doc 38, Hist of ADCOM, 1976) 

146. Ltr (0), Gen Daniel James, Jr., CINCNORAD, to Gen 
David C. Jones, CSAF, n.s. 2 Jun 77. ■ 

147.' Affidavit~(U)"of Major General Ifilliam D. Gilbert,'. 
- Air Force Director of Engineering and Services, 21 May '79, 
filed as attachment to Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss, or, 
in the Alternate for Susmary Judgment, " Case No. 79, F-4S1 
( Willett et a l v; Brom et'al), District Court, Denver, CO, 
18 Jul 79 (Doc. 42). ' 

148.' Report (S-Revw-98), "Proposal For: A Reorganiza- " 
tion of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning Resources," 
Jan 78, .pp 17, IX-2 (Doc 39, Chap I, Hist, of ADCOM 1977-78). 

149. Memorandum for the Record, (S-Decl 31 Dec 90), Lt Col 
0. H. Wornser, Exec Ass.t, .Office VCofS, USAF, "Proposed-Re- 
organization . . ,",■ 28 Feb 79 (approved' by General Allen) 
(Boc 18) . 

150. Staff Action Memo (D), Lt Col W. N. Ague, Exec, 
DCS/Plans 5 Programs, ADCOM, to XPX, "Reorganization Activi- 
ties," 30 Mar 79; SSS (U), Col T. K. Jensen, Director, Plans, 
Programs, Requirements, DCS/Plans., to XP, "Reorganization 
Activities," 13 Apr 79 (Doc 85); SSS (U), Col T. D. Cothran, 
Jr., DCS/Engineering and Services, ADCOM, to ADC0M/XPX, "Study 

of Reorganization Proposals for NORAli/ADC at Peterson AFB, 
CO," 19 Apr 79, with 1 Atch, "NORAD/ADC Reorganization Study- 
Options" (Doc 86). 

151. Ltr (0), Gen J. E. Hill, CIMORAD, to Gen Leu 
Allen, CofS, USAF, U.S., 9 May 79 (Doc 87). ■ 

152. Ltr (U), Maj Gen R. W. Fye, CofS, ADCOM, to Hq 
USAF/LEE, "FY 1981 Military Construction Program (Our ltr, 
12 Dec 78)," 27 Apr 79 (Doc 88). 

153. Memo for the CMC (U), from Maj Gen If. C. Moore, 
"Telecon vith Lt Gen Marion Boswell, Asst Vice Chief of Staff, 
Friday, 1700., 25 May," 29 May. 79 (Doc 89). 

154. 'ij.Baclcjround Paper (U), "Facility Survey for (Reor- 
ganizationj-Staff Relocation," prepared" by Lt Col D. P. 
Johnson, XPXP/.ADCOM, 19 Jim 79 (Doc 90) . 

155. Ltr-(U), R. H. Gutmann, Dir, Logistics and Coamimi- 
cations Division, Government Accounting Office, to The Honor- 
able Ken Kramer, II . S. House of Representatives, 25 Jun 79 
(Doc 32). 

156. Denise Gamino, "So Peterson AFB Building Slated 
for NORAD Move;" Colorado Springs Sun, 27 Jim 79. 

, 157.'.. Affidavit ,(UJ of 'Major General William D. Gilbert, 
Air-Force' 'Director-of Engineering; and Services, Zl-May 79, 
filed as attachment to Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss , or, 
in 'the Alternate for Summary Judgment," in Case Ho. 79-F-4S1 
f wiilett ef a-lv-.-Browi et al)V District Court, Denver, CO, 
18 Jul 79 (Doc 42). " 

158. Memo for the Commander-in-Chief (Uj , n.s., Maj Gen 7 * 
,». C. Moore, Vice Commander-in-Chief, 12 Jul 79 (note on 

document from General Hill said: "Good. Press on."), (Doc 
91); Ltr (U), Maj Gen W. C. Moore, Vice Commander, ADCOM, to 
XP, "KORAD/ADCOM Move to Peterson AFB," -20 Jul 79 (Doc 92), 

159. Ltr '(II), Col G. A. Bohlen, DCS/Engineering and ' 
Services, ADCOM, to Hq USAF/LEE , "Programming for NORAD/ADC 
Headquarters Relocation to Peterson AFB," 15 Oct 79, with 1 
Atch: DD1391 (Doc 93) . 

160. SSS (U), Brig Gen N. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and 
Programs, ADCOM to CC, "Realignment Facilities Requirements," 
12 Oct 79, with 1 atch, Ltr (U), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD/ 
CINCAD, to Gen Lev Allen, CofS, USAF, n.s., 15 Oct 79 (Doc 

161. Ltr (U), Gen James A. Hill, VCofS, USAF, to Gen 
J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD/CINCAD, U.S., 13 Nov 79 (Doc 95). 

162. Minutes of the ADCOM Reorganization Working Croup 
Meeting (0), 17 Dec 79. 

163. Hist of ADCOM (S-Revw 31 Dec 99), 1978-79, pp 24- 
31 (material used S-Revw-98). 

164. Ibid., pp 31-32 (material used S-Revw-98) 

165. Study (TS-XP 79-003), "Space Mission Organization 
Planning," Executive Summary and Summary Report, Vol I (mate- 
rial used S),pp ES-1, ES-3-4, ES-30-38. 

166. Hist of ADCOM (S-Revw 31 Dec 99) , -1978-79,- p; 32 -" 
(material used S-Revw 98); Ltr (S-Decl 29 Jan 85); Gen j;'E; : '- : 
Hill, CINCNORAD/to Gen lew Allen, CofS.USAK, n.s., 5 Feb 

79 (Doc 96). •,-»,; :,- • ; 

167. Ltr (S-Decl 29 Jun.85), Gen Hill to Gen Allen, 

. 5 Feb 79 (Doc 96). Bill repeated his position in a ltr to 
Allen, ^22 Feb 79 (Doc 22). 

168. Ltr (S-Decl 19 Apr 85), Gen J. E. Hill, Commander 
in Chief, ADCOM, to Gen Lew Allen, CofS, USAF, n.s. 27 Apr 79 

■JPst.SQfl Availed eaiiination^space.otgaiiiiational,,^^ 
'alternatives and' ADCOM''*s concerns ~ also went to Lt Gen hT'L. : 
Lawson, Dir of Plans and Policy, J-5, JCS, on 27 Apr 79 (Doc 

169.- Attach 6, "SHOPS 'Votes'," (?) to Background Paper 
on Space Mission 'Organization Planning Study (SMOPS), (S- 
Revw S Feb 91}, 14 Jan 80 (Doc 99) ; Comments by General Hill 
(U), in ADCOM Morning Staff Meeting, 12 Feb 79 (Historian 
in attendance) . ■_ 

170. Background Paper on Space Mission Organization 
Planning Study. (SMOPS),, (S-Revw 5 Feb 99), .'14 Jan 80 (Doc 99); 
Msg (U), OSAE/OIP to ALMAJC0M-S0A/OI, "Space and Missile Sys- 
tem Realignment," 03/2100Z Aug 79. 

171. Hans M. Mark, "USAF's Three lop Priorities," Air 
Force, Sep 79, Vol 62, No 9, p 66. 

172. Ltr (U), Gen J. E. Hill, CIMCAD, to Gen Lew Allen, 
CofS, USAF, n.s., 21 Dec 79 (Doc 100). Hill also wrote to 
Secretary Mark late in the year that he was confident the 
Secretary would guide Air Force space organization "along the 
proper path." (Ltr, Hill to Mark, 26 Dec 79 (Doc 101).) 

173. Cost sharing plans arc discussed in Journal of 
Discussions of the Permanent Joint Board of Defense (S-Decl 
31 Dec 08), meetings 144 through 150, quarterly from Sep 76 
through Jun 78, 

174. Msg (S-No DG Instructions), NDIIQ, Ottawa, to 
RCCPW/CDLS, Washington, and CANSUPPORT, Ent AFB, "North 
American Air Defense," 10/2001Z May 78. The Danson letter is 
quoted verbatim in this message (Doc 102), 

175. Ltr (U), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD, to Chairman of 
JCS, "Modernization of North American Air Defense Systems in 
Canada and Alaska (Your Memo, CM-1940-78, 24 Hay 78)," 14 Jun 
78 (Doc 103). .. s 

176. Ltr (U), SecDef Harold Brown to Minister of Defense 
Barnett J. Danson, 29 Jun 78. Ltr is reproduced in Final 
Report (S-Revw Jul 99), "Joint U.S. -Canada Air Defense 
Study," Oct 79, p A-6 (Doc 104). 

177. Journal of Discussions and Decisions (S-Decl 31 Dec 
08), "151 Meeting of the PJBD, 11-14 Oct 78," p 16 (material 
used C). 

178. Msg (C-GDS-84), JCS to CINCNORAD, "Terms of Refer- 
ence, Joint U.S. -Canada Air Defense Study/' 29/23S9Z Nov 78 
(Doc '105) r "-"•'■■-* " •' - "" - "'*■*- ■ - ■■"'-■ ■■■ 

"J. Ibid. 

180.' Msg (C-GDS-84), Hq NORAD/J-S to JCS/J-5, "Terms of 
Reference . . .," 01/1400Z Dec 78. The following Hq ADCOM/ 
NORAD officers and civilians served on the Study Group: Col 
Louis Churchill, Col Bait Davis, Mr. William Fischer, Mr. 5 
Elton Helfrick, Maj Donald Johnson (CF), and Maj Ken Mayne 
(CF). NORAD advisors to the taking Group were Col W. R. 
Kenty, Col R, W. Morton (CF), and Col H. S. Tetlock (CF). 

181. Ltr (S-RD), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD, to SecDef 
Harold Brown, 3 Oct 78. Hill's fears were real enough. The 
Secretary of Defense's Draft Consolidated Guidance, FY 1981- 
85, dated 9 Feb 79, stated "New air defense procurement pro- 
grams should not be initiated until the joint U.S. -Canadian 
air defense study has been completed and its results consid- 
ered in our force planning." CINCAD objected that the joint 
study was but one of several documents used to determine pro- 
gram objectives, and he predicted that if the study recom- 
mended any programs not in current programming documents, 
delays would incur in modernization while U.S. and Canadian 

governmental agencies considered the study. The next version 
of the CG, on 12 April, said new procurement, 
such as space-based systems, should not be initiated until 
the study was completed and its results considered in force 
planning. (SSS (S-RD), Brig Gen K. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans 
and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "Draft Consolidated Policy 
Guidance and Draft Consolidated Guidance," 24 Apr 79; Msg (S- 
Revw-99), CINCAD/CC to JCS/CJCS, "Draft Consolidated Guidance 
(CG) FY 81-85," 22/2010Z Feb 79.) 

182. SSS (U), Col U, R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Pro- 
grams, ADCOM, to NORAD/CC, et si, "JUSCADS Conference, 15-15 
Feb 79," 8 Feb 79, Kith 3 atchs. 

'■■ 183.*"'SSS*'.(U), : Hai" i Ges''?(CFJiR,'..R. Barber/'NORAD/DCS Plans 
and Programs ,• to CC et/al," "Joint U.S. /Canada Air Defense 
Study Status Report and Current Task Plan," 6 Mar 79. 

184 : . SSS (11), Col (CF) H. S. Tetlock, Asst DCS/Plans 
and Programs, NORAD, to CC et al, "Joint U.S. -Canada Air De- 
fense Study, Preliminary Results Briefing," 9 Apr 79, with 
atch (S-Decl 31 Dec 08), "Point Paper", (Doc 106); SSS (C-Decl 
18 Apr 85), Col 1. L. Churchill, Spec Asst, DCS/Plans and Pro- 
grams, NORAD, to CC et al, "JUSCADS Meeting, 11-12 Apr 79-- 
Trip Report," 18 Apr 79,. with 1 2 atchs (Doc 107); SSS (C-Decl 
9 May 85), Col W. R. Kenty, 'Asst DCS/Plans and Programs: AD- 
"COM, -to"N/CC^t* t al'!- f "JUSCADS', i,i n5 'May-79? ritWstch' TDoc^'""' 

185. Itr (S-Decl 19 Apr 85), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD, 
to It Gen R. L. Lawson, Dir of Plans and Policy (J-5), JCS, 
27 Apr 79 (Doc 98). 

186. SSS (C-Decl 9 May.SS), Col W. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/, a. 
Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to K/CC, "Joint U.S. -Canada Air ' 
Defense Study (JUSCADS)," 15 May 79, with 1 atch:. Memo (C- 
Decl 9 May 85), JCS Vice Dir (J-S) to Dir Joint Staff, 12 May 
79, with 1 atch, Memo (C-Decl 9 May 85), JCS Vice Dir (J-5) 

to Mr. Siena (Doc 108); SSS (S-Revw 4 Jun 85), Brig Gen If. E. 
Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to N/CC et al, "Re- 
port of Joint JUSCADS Dorking Group Meeting," 4 Jun 7J, with 
1 atch: Summary (S-Revw 4 Jun 85), of Key Points of Briefing 
(Doc 109). 

187. Msg (S-Revw 4 Jun 85) , CINCNORAD/CD to 0SD/1SA, 
NDHQ/ADM POL, "JUSCADS Tentative Conclusions Briefing," 06/ 
2130Z Jun 79 (Doc 110) . 

188. Talking Paper on Joint U.S. -Canada Air Defense 
Study (JUSCADS) (S-Revw Jun 99), prepared by Col L. L. 
Churchill, 17 Oct 79 (Doc 111); SSS (S-Decl 50 Aug 85), Col 
If. E. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to N/CC et 
al, "JUSCADS Joint Working Group Memorandum to Mr. Aldridge, 
Study Director," 4 Sep 79, with 1 atch: Joint Working Group 
Memo, »ith 1 atch (S-Decl 30 Aug 8S) (Doc 112); Msg (S-Decl- 
85), NORAD/J-S to OSD/1SA, and NDHQ/ADM POl, "NORAD Comments 
on JUSCADS Final Draft, Sep 79," 02/1S00Z Oct 79 (Doc 113); 
Msg (S-Revw Jul 99), Hq NORAD/J-5 to OSD/ISA and NDHQ/ADM POl, 
"NORAD Comments on JUSCADS Final Draft, Sep 79," 05/20302 Oct 
79 (Doc 114). 

189. Ltr (S-Revw Jul 99), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD, to 
Mr. James V.- Siena, Dep Asst Sec (Eur and NATO Affairs), OSDf 
n.s., 4 Oct 79 (Doc 115). An identical letter was sent to 
Mr. John F. Anderson, Asst Dep Min (Policy), NDHQ, Ottawa. 

190. Final Report (S-Revw Jul 99), "Joint U.S. /Canada 
Air Defense Study," Oct 79, pp-1-3, 1-15, 1-17 (Doc 104). 

191. ltr (S-Revw Jul 99), Hill to Siena, 4 Oct 79 (Doc 

192. SSS (S-Revw Jul 99), Maj Gen (CF) C. A. LaFrance, 
OCS/Plans and Programs, NORAD, to N/CC, et al, "Joint U.S./. 
Canada Air„Defense, ! Study-.(JUSCADS),".17 Oct 79 (Doc lI6)rMsg"<< 
(S-GtS 18 Oct 85), Secstate to AMEMBASST Ottawa, "Joint U-.S./- 
Canada Air Defense Study (JUSCADS)," 18/17062 Oct 79 (Doc 117); 
Msg (U), JCS-J-5 to CINCNORAD/J-S, "Future Policy for North 
American Air/Defense," 06/16237, Nov 79 (Doc. 118). 

193.' Briefing (S-Revw Jul 99), Mr. Pete Aldridge, Study 
Director, to General Hill, 8 Nov 79 (Historian in attendance);- 
Msg (S-Revw 99), CINCNORAD/CC to OASD/ISA, .and NDHQ/ADM (POl)', 
"JUSCADS Final Results Briefing,"- 14/2310Z Nov 79 (Doc 119); 
Msg (U).,. NORAD/J-S to.JCS/J-5,."N0RAD-Coiments on JUSCADS 
Final Report," 28/22502 Nov 79 (Doc 120); Ltr (U), Gen J. E. 
Hill, CINCNORAD, to Mr. James V. Siena, Dep Asst Sec (Eur and 
NATO Affairs), OSD, n.s., 21 Dec 79 (Doc 121); Msg (C-Dttl'26 
Dec 85), SecDef/USDP to CINCNORAD, for Gen Hill froa J. V, 
Siena, "JUSCADS Final Results Briefing," 26/231SZ Dec 79 (Doc 

194. Ltr' (S-Revw-99), Gen Hill to Gen Jones, n.s., 28 Nov 
79, with 1 atch: "Policy Paper" (Doc 123), 

195. Policy Paper (S-Revw 23 Nov 99), "NORAD Proposal 
for 3 United States-Canada Policy for the Air Defense of the 
North American Continent," to Ltr (S-Revw 23 Nov 99), Gen J. E. 
Hill, CINCNORAD, to Gen D. C. Jones, CJCS, n.s., 28 Nov 79 
(Doc 123). 

196. Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense (S-Revw 4 Dec 
99), from Vice Admiral Thor Hanson, Mr, Joint Staff (for the 
JCS), "Policy Recommendations for North American Air Defense," 
(JCSH- 339-79), 10 Dec 79 (Doc 124). 

197. Ltr (S-Revw 19), It Gen J. V. Hartinger, CINCNORAD, 
to Hq' USAF/XO, "North American Air Defense . . .," with 1 
atch: Talking Paper (S-Revw 99), "NORAD Views of the Joint 

^U.S./Canada'AirtDefense Study," 18 Jan' 80 (Doc 125); Interest 
"■Paper '(S-Revw 15 Sail 2000); 'Tolicy Recomiendations . . .," 

'Lt Col &?S. Mar,' XPXA, 15 Jan 80 (Doc 126), 
.'■ ■ ' ■ ■:'',) ' ' ' 

■■;■ 198,'- Hist of ADCOM, Jan 77-Dec 78, p 252; See Appendixes 

XII, XIII, and XIV,. this history. 

200. Hist of ADCOM, Jan 77-Dec 7S, p 250; See Appendix 
XI, this. history'.. 

«^W.5,01riCh/ri^i,Dl, ? .ADC»R,e.rsonnel„Strength.(Includinf,»AD- ,;. 
iC0M),\31 Dec 7.9"-('see. Appendix XIV); Chart (U), NORAD Joint 
Table 'of Distribution Strength, 31 Dec 79 (see Appendix XI) . 

202. Hist Rprts.(U), DCS/Personnel to Office of Hist,'' . 
Jan-Jun 79, 31 Jul 79, and Jul-Dec 79, 16 Jan 80 (Office of. 
Hist file 25.5)., • 

■ 203.' B Ltr itli>:ADCOM DCS/Intelligence to the NORAD/ADCOM 
staff , .subj : ' .Internal Reorganization of NORAD-ADCOM/IN, 5 Dec 
79, with. 1'atch:, ADCOM/IN isg (U), 3022302 Nov 7.9 (Doc 127). 

2.04. Hist.Rprts (0), DCS Intelligence to Office 'of Hist, 
Jan-Jun 79, 2. Aug 79, and Jul-Dec 79, IS Jan 80- (Office of 
Hist file 25.8). . 

205. Hist Rprts (S-Rcvn-99) (material used D), DCS/ 
Operations to Office of Hist, Jan-Jun 79, 21 Aug 79, and Jul- 
Dec 79, 17 Jan 80 (Office of Hist file 25.4). 

. 206. Hist Rprts (U), DCS/Logistics to Office of Hist., 
Jan-Jun 79, Z5 Jul 79, and Jul -Dec 79, 17 Jan 80 (Office of 
Hist, file 25.11). 

207. Hist Rprts (S-Decl-09) (items used II), DCS/Plsns, 
Policy, Programs, and Requirements to Office of Hist., Jan- 
Jun 79, 19 Jul 79, and Jul-Dec 79, IS Jan 80 (Office of Hist, 
file 25.16). 

208. Hist Rprts (11), DCS/Comiunicatiotis, Electronics, 
and Computer Services to Office of Hist., Jan-Jun 79, 25 Jul 
79, and Jul-Dec 79, 7 Feb 80 (Office of Hist file 25.10). 

210. Hist Rprts (B), DCs/Communications, Electronics, 
and Computer Services to Office of Hist., Jan-Jun 79, 25 Jul 
79, and Jul-Dec 79, 7 Feb 80 (Office of Hist file 25.10). 

211. ■ Hist Rprts (U), DCS/Comptroller to Office of Hist., 
Jan-Jun 79, 26 Jul 79, and Jul-Dec 79, 10 Jan 80 (Office of 
Hist, file 25.1). 

212. Hist Rprts (U), Dir of Public Affairs to Office of 
Hist., Jan-Jun 79, 27 Jul 79, and Jul-Dec 79, 14 Jan 80 (Of- 

.fice of Hist, file 25.12); msg (U), ALMAJCOM,^272130Z 

213. Hist Rprts (U), Judge Advocate to Office of Hist., 
Jan-Jun 79, -30 Jul 79, and Jul-Dec 79, 15 Jan 80 (Office- of 
Hist, file 25.9). ■ 

214. Hist Rprts (U), Dir of Admin to Office of Hist., 
Jan-Jun 79; 30 Jul 79, and Jul-Dec 79, 25 Jan 80 (Office of s 
Hist, file 25.2). , 

215. Hist Rprts (D),- Inspector General to Office of 
Hist., Jan-Jun 79, 17 Aug 79, and Jul-Dec 79, 22 Jan 80 (Of- 
fice of Hist, file 25.7).. 

216. Hist Rprts (U), Chief of Safety to Office of Hist. 
Jan-Jun 79, 24 Jul 79, and Jul-Sep 79, 17 Jan 80 (Office of 
Hist. file 25.13). 

217. Hist Rprt (II), Command Surgeon to Office of Hist., 
Jan-Jun 79, 24 Jul 79, and Jul-Sep 79, 17 Jan 80 (Office of 
Hist, file 25.14). 

^-^». H i" J S I J 9 l ShWHM!, t S s T ,of,,iM -' 

CDoc U 1 ^. H " TORA ^ ADC0 " Staff Bullets No. J9 (U] , 4 Oct 79 

130). ^ M tl "' Hq ADC0M * H t »SAF, 301930Z Nov 79 (Doc 
223. Ibid. 

sonnel, Aptil 1979 (Doc 131) D " ° f CmllM Fer - 

Ctvilia^pW^ ( A U DC0H r °LlT rn f0r ?£f i0nal Transf « «* 
to dl DCS L% cia Itaff " s , D °L M^ ltt '?'• ADC0H 

Mr. cSesT^S; S^maT^ 0ff T s f ""• » it! > 

16 Apr 80. ■ Civilian Personnel, DCS/Personnel , 

Aug 79 VuS)^ ADC ° M t0 DMS 4 a " d 5 > ««1 "HP, 241530Z - 

P»lfc M ft ?i f C ^ P J"S™}.«>ai«. "AERODW, subj : 
136). iranster of Function, 4 Sep 79 (Doc 

229. MsHU),ADCOMtoUSAF, 071800Z J un 79 (Doc 137) . 

231. Hist. Rprt (U), ADC DCS/Personnel to Office of 
Hist., Jul-Dec 79, 16 Jan 80 (Office of Hist, file 25.5). 

232. Intvw [U), Mildred K. Johnson, Office of Hist., 
with Mr. Charles L. Shinn, Director of Civilian Personnel, 
DCS/Personnel, 16 Apr 80. 

233. Ibid.; Ltr (U), 46AERODW, subj: Notice of Reduc- 
tion-in-Force, 1 Nov 79 (Doc 139); Briefing to CINCAD by AD- 
COM DCS/Personnel, (no date) (Doc 140). 

234. lot™ (U), Mildred W. Johnson, Office of Hist., 
with Mr. C. I. Shinn, Director of Civilian Personnel, DCS/ 
Personnel, ADCOM, 16 Apr 80; Ltr (U), Vice CINCAD'to all DCS 
and special staff, ADCOM, subj: Civilian Personnel Hiring \ 
Freeze - Peterson AFB Complex, 10 Apr 79 (Doc 141) . 

235. Ibid. 

236. interest Paper (U), DCS/Plans and Programs, ACCOM, 
subj: FY 79 Officer Grade Reduction, 9 Mar 79 (Doc 142). 

237. Memo (U), DCS/Plans and Prograus, ADCOM, to staff, 
subj: Officer Grade Reduction, 20 Mar 79 (Doc 143). 

238. Memo (U), DCS/Plans and Prograus, ADCOM, to staff, 
.suhj :..,ADCOM-Officer»-.Grade.-.Rednctionr 9-Feh'*79 "(Doc 144) ; *■• ■ - 
Memo (U), DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to CINCAD, subj: AD- 
COM Officer Grade Reduction, 8 Mar 79 (Doc 145) ; Memo (11) , 
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to Chief of Staff and DCS/Op- 
erations, ADCOM, subj: ADCOM Officer Reduction, 4 Apr 79 
(Doc 146). 

239. Ltr (U), f.INCNORAB to USAF, (no subj), 5 Apr 79 
(Doc 147); Ltr (IT), DSAF to CINCNORAD/ADCOM, subj: Reporting 
Procedures for the FY 1980 General Officer Manning and Position 
Review.Board, 13 Feb 79 (Doc 148); ltr (li), Lt Gen B. L. Davis, 
DCS Manpower and Personnel, USAF, to Gen Janes 1. Hill, CINC- 
NORAD/ADCOM, (no subj), 15 Mar 79 (Doc 149). 

240. Memo (D), Director of Manpower and Organization to 
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: General Officer Reduc- 
tion, 9 May 79 (Doc 150); Memo (U), DCS/Plans and Programs, 
ADCOM to DCS/Intelligence, ADCOM, subj: General Officer Re- 
duction, 11 May 79 (Doc 151). 

241. Msg (S-Decl-85), SecState to AMEMBASSY, Ottawa, 
1923182 Sep 79 (Doc 4). 

242. Ltr (S-Decl-86), NORAD to 20NR, subj : Joint Table 
of Distribution (1)), 2 Apr 79 (Into used 0) (Doc 152); Ltr 
(D), Chief of Staff, NORAD to DCS/Plans and Programs, NORAD, 
subj : U.S. Aray Manpower Resources in NORAD, 11 Apr 79 (Doc 
153); ltr (tl), Chief of Staff, NORAD to NORAD Regions, subj: 
Coordination of Out of Cycle Change to the NORAD Joint Han- 
power Prograi (JMP), 13 Jun 79 (Doc 154); Ltr (U), NORAD' ■ 
Dir/Manpower and Organization to JCS, subj: 1 Oct 79 Out of 
Cycle Change to the NORAD/ADCOK Joint Manning Prograi (JMP) , 
14 Aug 79 (Doc 1SS) . 

243. Memo (S-Revw-98), DCS/Operations, NORAD to DCS/ 
Plans and Prograns, NORAD, subj: Increased Manpower Authori- 
zations for Det 1, NORAD COC, Tinker AFB, OK (U)/2 May 79, ' 
with 1 atch (S-Revw-98): NORAD/DO Proposed Ltr ((I), 3 Kay 79 
(Doc. 156). ' 

244. Memo (S-Revw-98), DCS/Plan, NORAD to DCS/Opera- 
tions, NORAD, subj: Increased Manpower Authorizations for 
Det 1, NORAD COC, Tinker AFB, OK (0), 16 May 79, with 1 atch 
(S-Revw-98): Hq ADCOM/XPA ltr, 14 May 79 (Doc 157); Ltr (U), 
USAF (MPMP) to ADCOM, subj : Increased Manpower Requirements 
for F.-3A NORAD Mission Crews, 30 Jul 79, with 1 atch (U): 
Methodology (Doc 1S8). 

... ,™?.J5-... Memo..4>r,,Record.-(lJ) , DCS/Plans and Programs; -AD- -~* 
"COM; subj: Redistribution of SPADOC Resources, 11 Jul 79 
(Doc 159). 

246. Ltr (U), ADCOM to Air Divisions, subj: Weapons 
Controller Manning and Experience Levels, 16 Jan 79 (Doc 

247. Ibid,; Dir of Assignments. DCS/Personnel , ADCOM, 
21 Sep 79. 

248. Hist, of ADCOM (S-Revw-99) (material used II), 
1 Jan 77-31 Dec 78, p 35. 

249. Hist. Rprts (U), DCS/Comptroller to Office of 
Hist., Jan-Jun 79, 26 Jul 79, and Jul-Dec 79, 10 Jan 80 
(Office of Hist, file 25.1); Briefing (U), Monthly Manage- 
ment Review by the Comptroller, Col Louis R. Ravetti, 26 Oct 
79 (Doc 161). 

250. Ibid. 

251. Briefing (U), Monthly Manageient Review by the 
Comptroller, Col Louis B. Ravetti, 26 Oct 79. 

252. Hist. Rprt (U), DCS/Cmptroller to Office of 
Hist., Jul-Dec 79, 10 Jan 80 (Office of Hist, file 25.1); 
Briefing (U), Monthly Management Review by the Comptroller, 
Col Louis R. Ravetti, 26 Oct 79. 

253. Ibid. 


1. SSS (U), Col f.R. Wisneski, Command IG, to CC 
et ai, "Summary of USAF/IG Inspection Report USAF Support 
to S5RAD," 30 Jan 80, with 1 Atch: Summary (S-Decl IS Dec 
99) (Doc 162); TIG Report (S-Decl IS Dec 99/Privileged 
Document), "Special Inspection of USAF Support to NORAD," 
FN 80-2056, 3-15 Dec 79, distributed 13 Jan 80, pp 9, 16 
(Doc 163). An earlier briefing of IG findings to CIKCNORAD, 
on IS December, drew criticism from General Hill and his 
staff that it was hastily done and superficial. General 
Hill recommended the team return and complete the job. The 
IG agreed, but whereas it had formerly not planned to prepare 
a written report, now it decided to do,so. On IS January 
the Deputy IG for Inspection and Safety briefed CINCNORAD 

on the above report. It contained recommended corrective 
actions to which NORAD must officially respond in early 
1980. (Briefing of the initial report by Coi R. Nolan, 
AFIG, to CINCNORAD, IS Dec 79 (Doc 164); SSS (U) Haj Gen 
B.K. Brown, DCS/Ons, NORAD, to NORAD/CC, "CISC Visit with 
USAF IG," 2 Jan SO, with Atch (C-Decl Jan 2000), "Talking 
Paper on USAF Special Inspection of NORAD/ADCOM," prep, bv 
ifej P.E. Rose, IGY, ADCOM 2 Jan 80 (Doc 165). 

2. TIG Report (S-Decl 15 Dec 99/Privileged Document), 
13 Jan 80, pp 5-6; Rpt (FOUO), "MGR Operator Events" nrep. 
by T/Sgt T.A. Howard, 14 Hot 79; Msg (S-Revw 23 Nov 99), Hq 
N0RAD/D0 to JCS/J3/C3S, "False Indications at 09/155U Nov 
79," 26/16S8Z Nov 79 (Doc 166); Memorandum (S-Revw 19 Nov 99), 
for Dep Dir for Stra C 3 Systems and Dep Dir for Ops (Current 
Ops), JCS, from Col J.J. Kamp, Chief, NEACP, "NEACP Events in 
Response to Missile Threat Assessment Conference, 9 November 
1979," 19 Nov 79 (Doc 167). 

5. A collection of press articles it included as 
(Doc 168). 

4. "False Alert of Missiles Sows Fear," Philadelphia 
Inquirer, 11 Nov 79, p 3; Msg (S-GDS 11/27/85), SecState to 
US Mission NATO and all NATO capitals, "Inf : Soviets and 
the False Missile Alert," 28/00222 Nov 79 (Doc 169). 

''. Memorandum for the Record (U), "Continuation of 
Congressional Briefings in Response to NORAD Alert inquiries," 
prep, ty Maj Pat Sweeney, OATSD (Legislative Affairs), 5 Dec 
79 (Doc 170 ). 

6. Msg (S-Decl 31 Dec 87), Hq NORAD/J- 3 to ASD/C 3 I 
et al (personal for Dr. Dinneen, Lt Gen Shutler, and Lt Gen 
Dick~Tnson), "Meeting Between Members of NORAD Staff and Sen. 
Hart," 20/2H5Z Dec 79 (Doc 171 ). 

7. Ltr (U) Col P. A. Deering, Dep Condr for Data Auto- 
mation, NORAD/ADCOM Combat Operations Center, to ADC0M/D02, 
"Operational Review Board Status," 29 Nov 79, with 1 Atch: 
"FACC Ltr 28 Nov 79," (Doc 172 j; Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99), Hq 
NORAD/J- 3 to JCS/C 3 S, for It Gen Dickinson from Maj Gen Brown, 
"NORAD ORB Update," 29/1708Z Nov 79 (Doc 173 ); Msg (S-Revw 
30 Nov 99), Hq N0RAD/D0 to JCS/J-3/c'S/ IWICS Evaluation 
Office, "False Indications at 99/1SS1Z Nov 79," 30/19S6Z Nov 
79 (Doc 174 ); Msg (S-Revw 5 Dec'88), NORAD/J-6 to Hq USAF 
/XOX, "Missile Marning Scenario Control," 05/0215Z Dec 79 
(Doc 175 ); Background Paper on 9 Noveuber 1979 False Indi- 
cations (S-Revw 30 Nov 99), OPft NORAD/DOPC (Maj Sapp). 26 

Dec 79 (Doc 176 ); SSS (U), It Col K.E, Lager, Actg Dir, 
User/Interface Configuration/Control, DCS/Ops, NORAD/ADC0M/ADC, 
to H0RAD/DO, "Action Item Management Book," 4 Jan 80, with 1 
Atch (S-Revw 4 Jan 99), "Management Book Contents," (Doc 17/ ). 

8. Msg (U), Hq NORAD/DOPC to Hq ADCOS et al, "NORAB/ 
ADCOM Regulation 55-104, 12 Sep 79 "21/1930Z Bec"79; Msg 
(S-Revw 26 Dec 99), Hq NORAD/J-3 to JCS/J-5/C 3 S, "Suspension 
of 427M Development Testing," 26/1415Z Dec 79 (Doc 178 ). 

9. Msg (S-Revw 30 Nov 99), Hq NORAD/DO to JCS/J-3/ 
C 3 S/lfNMCS Eva! Office, "False Indications at 09/1SSIZ Nov 
79," 30/19S6Z Nov 79 (Doc 174 ); Memorandum (C-Revw 15 May 
K), from Col J.K. Lowe, Dir Air Def Ops, ADCOM/DOO, to 
President, ORB (Col Brandt), "Operations Review Board (PHASE 
III' Report)," 14 Nov 79 (Doc 179 ); Memorandum (S-Revw IS 
May 99), from Col W.H. Riley, Dir of C»d and Con Systems, 
ADCOM/DOC, "Operations Review Board (PHASE III Report)," 

16 Nov 79 (Doc 180 )i Msg (S-Revw 21 Nov 99), Hq ADCOM/DOO 
to all NORAD Regions et al, "Unit Response to NWS /TiORAD 
Alert Harning System /Hfarning Alert," 21/2200Z Nov 79 
(Doc in ); Msg (S-Revw 28 Nov 99), Hq NORAD/DO to JCS/J3, 

personal for Lt Gen Shutler froi Ma] Gen Brown, "Missile 
Attack Warning, " 29/00012 Nov 79 (Doc 182); Msg (S-Revw 
28 Nov 99), Hq NORAD/DO to AIG 7812, "Missile Attack 
Warning, " 30/2307Z Nov 79 (Doc 183); Msg (S-Revw 7 Dec 99), 
Hq NORAD/DO to AIG 7812, "NAS Alter Warning Test," 07/1728Z 
Dec 79 (Doc 184); Msg (S-Revw 4 Dec 99), Hq NORAD/DOO at 
ALL NRs et al, "Missile Attack Warning," 18/19S2Z Dec 79; 
Msg (S-Revw IS May 98), Hq NORAD/DO to AIG 7812 et al, 
"Missile Attack Warning/Interim Emergency Change"! to N/A 
Reg 55-19, Vol III, 15 May 79," 17/1800Z Jan 80 (Doc 185); 
Msg (I)), Hq N0RAD/J6 to JCS/C 3 S, "Review of NORAD Alert 
System (NAS) Circuits," 25/2300Z Jan 80 (Doc 186). 

10. Interest Paper (FOUO) on Proposed Relocation of 
the Command Section to the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, pre- 
pared bv Lt Col P.M. Fleming, XPXP, 7 .Jan 80 (Doc 187); 
Ltr (U), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCAD to Chairman JCS, n.s., 

27 Dec 79 (Doc 188). 

11. Msg (S-Decl 31 Dec 87), Hq NORAD/J3 to ASD/C 3 ! 

et al, personal for Dr. Dinneen, Lt Gen Shutler, and Lt Gen 
DTcHnson, "Meeting Between Members of the NORAD Staff and 
Sen Hart," 20/2115Z Dec 79 (Doc 171). 

12. Hist (S-Revw 31 Dec 99) of ADCOM, 1977-78, p 103 
(material used S-Revw 96); atch I, Background Paper on 
Missile Naming and Attack Characterization (S-Decl 8 Nov 
85), prepared by Maj iiilkins/XPDW, 8 Nov 79, to SSS, Lt Col 
P. M. Fleming, Ch, Progs 5 Rqmts Div, XP to A/XP, "Talking 
Papers for 1979 CINC's Conference," 13 Nov 79 (Doc 189); 
Msg (S-Decl 13 Sep 99), C1KCAD/CC to JCS/CJCS, "FY-81 CJCS 
Military Posture Statement," 18/2055Z Sep 79 (Doc 190); 
ADCOM Command and Control System Master Plan," (S-Revw 

1 Jan 99), 30 Nov 79, pp 3-15, 3-16; Interest Paper on 
BMEB Modernization (S-Decl 10 Jan 86), prepared by Maj 
D. L. Klkins/XPDlffi, 11 Jan 80 (Doc 191). 

13. Msg (U), Hq AFSC/SDE to Hq ADCOM/XPD, "BMF.NS 
Modernization," 15/22002 Feb 79 (Doc 192); Msg (S-Revw 99), 
AfSC/CC to CSAF/CC, for Gen Allen from Gen Slay, "Enhanced 
Perimeter Acquisition Radar Characterization," 16/15162 Mar 
79 (Doc 193); Msg (S-Revw 31 Dec 91), SSO ADCOM/CC to AFSSO 
USAF/CC, for Gens Allen, J. A. Hill, and Slay, from Gen 

J. E. Hill, EPARCS," 28/ZZ20Z Mar 79 (Doc 194), 

14. SSS (S-Decl 6 Feb 85), Maj Gen (CF) R. R. Barber, 
DCS/Plans and Programs, NORAD, to N/CC, "BMEWS Modernization," 
16 Feb 79, with 1 atch, Msg (S-Decl 6 Feb 85), CINCAD/CV to 

Hq USAF/RD, "BMEKS Modernization . . .", 12/18002 Mar 79 
(Doc 195). 

15. SSS (U) , Brig Gen ». E. Lindemari, DCS/Plans and 
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "BMEKS IBM 7090 Replacement," 
18 May 79 (Doc 196). — 

16. Background Paper on BMEWS Modernization (0), pre- 
pared by Capt Harmon/XPDS, 27 Jul .79. 

17. Hist (S-Revw 31 Dec 99) of ADCOM, 1977-78, pp 105- 
104 (material used S-Decl 96); Talking Paper on BMEWS Mod- 
ernization (S-Decl 31 Dec 98), prepared by Capt Harmon/XPDS, 
10 Jan 79 (Doc 197). 

18. Background Paper on BMEWS Replacement Study (S-Revw 
27 Sov 98), prepared by Capt Harmon/XPDS, 25 Apr 79 (Doc 
198) to SSS (U), Col J. P. Foster, Dep Dir Missile and Space 
Defense, ADCOM, to A/JP, "BMEKS Replacement Study," 25 Apr 

19. Ltr (TS-XPX79-027-Revw 18 Jul 98), General James E. 
Hill, CINCAD, to Hon. H. R. Brown, SecDef, n.s., 13 Jul 79 
(material used S). (U) The Air Force study supportive of 
BMEWS modernization was finally briefed to Dr. Dinneen, on 

14 August. The study of various alternatives continued 
through the end of the year, however. 

20. Ltr (U), Gen James t. Hill, CINCAD, to Hon Gerald P- 
Dinneen, Asst SecDef (C3I), n.s., 31 Jul 79, with 1 atch 
(S-Decl 30 Jul 85), "Ballistic Missile Early earning System 
(BMEWS) Modernization vis-a-vis Phased Array" (Doc 199). 

'21. Talking Paper on BMEWS Modernization (S-Decl 31 Dec 
98), prepared by Capt Harmon/XPDS, 10 Jan 79 (Doc 197); SSS 
(S-Decl 31 Dec 91), Brig Gen W. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and 
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC, "BMEWS Improvement Status," 8 Jan 
79 (Doc ZOO); SSS (U), Col ». R, Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and 
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "BMEKS Improvement Status," 
22 Jan 79 (Doc 201). 

22. SSS (U), Col K. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Pro- 
grams, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, r, BMEWS IBM 7090 Replacement," 
6 Sep 79 (Doc 202); Msg (S-Decl 20 Oct 85), CINCNORAD/CC 
to CSAF/CC, "BMEKS Modernization," 15/1730Z Oct 79 (Doc 203). 

23. Msg (U), Hq AFSC/ACB to Hq USAF/ACB, "Proposed 
Deferral FY-80 BMEWS Modernization," 18/143SZ Sep 79; Msg 
(II), Hq ESD/ACB to Hq AFSC/ACB, "Deferral of FY 80-BMEWS 
Modernization Funding," 07/2008Z Sep 79; SSS (U) , Brig Gen 
W. E. Lindenan, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et 
al_, "BMEWS Modernization," 25 Oct 79, with 2 atch, Memo- 
randum for Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Research, 
Development and Logistics), from Gerald P. Dinneen, Principal 
Deputy, USDR5E, IS Oct 79 (Doc 204); Memorandum for Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (C3l) (S-Decl 31 Dec 95), from Eugene H. 
Kopf, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
Research, Development, and Logistics, "BMEWS Upgrade . . .", 
16 Oct 79 (Doc 205). 

24. Msg (S), Hq USAF/RDSD to Hq AFSC/SDE, "BMEWS tin- 
grade," 29/14302 Nov 79. 

25. Msg (0), Hq AFSC/SDE to Hq USAF/RDXP, "BMEWS Modern- 
ization Funding," 04/2004Z Dec 79 [Doc 206); Background Paper 
on BMEWS Modernization (S-Decl 10 Dec-85), prepared by Maj 
Wilkins/XPDW, 12 Dec 79 (Doc 207); Interest Paper on BMEWS 
Modernization (S-Decl 10 Jan 86), prepared by Iftj Wilkins/ 
XPDWG, 11 Jan 80 (Doc 191). 

26. Ltr (S-Revw 5 Dec 98), Maj Gen W. C. Moore, VCINCAD 
(for Gen J. E. Hill), to Hq USAF/PA, "FY 82-86 Consolidated 
Guidance," 6 Dec 79. 

27. This background information has been taken from 
COiWD/ADC histories for the period 1971-78. 

28. Msg (0), 6 MKS/DO to Hq ADCOM/DOFK, "PAVE PAWS 
Reliability and Availability Demonstration," 03/18302 Jan 79; 
SSS (0), Col L. J. Johnson, Dir of Space and Missile Warning 
Operations, ADCOM, to A/DO, "Current Status of Otis DT6E 

and IOTP," 13 Mar 79; Msg (U), 6 MWS/XPD to ADC0M/XPD, 
"AN/FPS-11S (PAVE PAWS) Initial Operation Test and Evaluation 
(0T5E)," 02/18252 Mar 79, 

29. Msg (U), OSAF/OIP to Hq AFSC/0IP et al_, "PAVE PAWS 
East Announcement," 05/22302 Apr 79; Msg (0), ESD/OCL to Hq 
AFSC/DISM, "PAVE PAWS-OtiS AFB Status," 12/19452 Apr 79. 

30. ADCOM DCS/Plans Historical Report (XPDS), Jan-Jun 

Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/X0 to ESD/OCL, "PAVE PAWS Sub- 
1 1S/2000Z Jun 79 (Doc 208). 

52, Msg (S-Decl 1 Oct 89), Hq ADCOM/DOF, to NMCC/ 
Surveillance Officer, "Status of PAVE PAHS Missile Warning 
Data," 06/23102 Jul 79 (Doc 209}. 

33. Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/DO to Hq USAF/XOO et al, "Status 
of PAVE PAWS Missile Warning Data--The 60 Day Dual Operation,' 
31/Z0S0Z Jul 79. 

34. Interview (U), John W. Dennison, ADCOH/HO, with 
Mr. F. E. Brooke, ADCOM/DEMUS, 21 Sep 79; Msg (S-Revw 31 Dec 
99), CINCAD to AIC 9S1, "Commander's Semi-annual Summary, 

1 Apr-30 Sep 79," 16/0105Z Oct 79; Msg (U), CINCAD/CV to 
AFSC/CV, "Otis PAVE PAWS Power Problems," 09/13507 Aug 79 
(Doc 210); Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/DE to ESD/DE/XP, "Otis PAVE 
PAKS Electric Generation Plant," 14 Aug 79; Msg (U), Hq 
Problems and Continued Operation of AN/FSS-7's at Ft Fisher 
AFS NC and Charleston AFS ME," 15/19452 Aug 79 (Doc 211), 
(II) Citizens groups had protested the building of both sites 
because of alleged health hazards posed by microwave radia- 
tion emanating from the radars. Lawsuits were filed onboth 
coasts to halt construction. Those wishing to follow the 
environmental issues involved are directed to History Elec- 
tronics Systems Division, (S-Decl 31 Dec 2007), Air Force 
Systems Command, 1977, pp 183-187; and, History of ESD 
(S-Revw 31 Dec 99), 1978, pp 3S-44. 

55. Msg (0), CINCAD/CV to AFSC/CV, "Otis PAVE PAWS 
Power Problems," 09/13502 Aug 79 (Doc 210). 

36. Msg (0), Hq AFSC/SO to CINCAD/CV, "Otis PAVE PAWS 
Power Problems," 20/1212Z Aug 75. 

Otis AF8 Power Plant," 28/1400Z Aug 79, atch 6, "6 MWS Power 
Plant Problem," to Staff Action Memorandum (0), from XP 
(Col Kenty), to XPD, XPX, and XPC, "PAVE PAWS Deficiencies," 
17 Oct 79; Interest Paper on 6th Missile Warning Squadron 
(Otis AFB) PAVE PAWS (S-Decl 1 Oct 89), prepared by CMSgt 
Martin, ADCOM/XPDlf, 17 Oct 79 (Doc 212), 

38. Msg (S-Decl 31 Oct 89), Hq ADCOM/DO to Hq USAF/ 
X0O/PAX/ACB, "PAVE PAWS Missile Warning Data," 07/16452 Sep 
79 (Doc 213); Msg (0), CINCAD/CV to Hq USAF/RDS/XOK/XOO/XOX, 
"Otis PAVE PAWS Power Problems," 10/18402 Sep 79 (Doc 214); 
Talking Paper on PAVE PAKS (S-Decl 27 Sep 87), prepared by 
Maj Nelson, ADCOM/XPDW, 26 Sep n (Doc 215); Msg (Uj, Hq 
7 Sixty Day Dual Operations," 28/214SZ Sep 79 (Doc 216). 

39. Interest Paper on 6th Missile Warning Squadron 
(Otis APB) PAVE PAWS (S-Decl 1 Oct 89) , prepared by CMSgt 
Martin, ADCOM/XPDW, 17 Oct 79 (Doc 212). 

40. Msg (»), Hq ADCOM/BO to Hq USAF/XOO/PAX/ACB, 
"Termination of Otis PAVE PAWS and AM/FSS-7 Sixty Day Dual 
Operations," C7/1710Z Nov 79 (Doc 217). 

41. Talking Paper on Otis PAVE PAHS (0), prepared by 
Maj L. P. Nelson, ADC/XPDW, 14 Jan 80 (Doc 218). 

42. Ur (0), Col P.. P. Atkinson, Jr., Commander 14MWS 
(ADCOM), to CINCAD/CV, "14 MS Quarterly Activity Report 
for the Period 1 January-31 March 1979; Msg (II), Hq USAF/ 
XOO/PAX to Hq ADCOH/DO/AC, "Extension of AN/FSS-7 Operations 
at Charleston AFS, ME and Pt Fisher AFS, NC," 1S/1400Z Apr 
79; SSS (li), Lt Col F. t. Nance, Director of Space and Missile 
Warning Operations, DCS/Ops, ADCOM, to DO, "Inpacts of AN/ 
FSS-7 East Coast Extension," with 2 afchs (Doc 219); Msg (0), 
Hq USAF/XOO/PAX/ACB to Hq NORAD/DO/AC/XP, "Extension of 
AN/FSS-7 Operations . . . ", 20/1531Z Jun 79 (Doc 220); Msg 
"Continued Operation of AN/fSS-7 Radars . . . ", 07/1330Z 
Sep 79 (Doc 221); Msg (U), Hq ADC0M/D0 to Hq SAC/AC/SX, 
"Continued East Coast FSS-' Operation," 16/2205Z Nov 79 

(Doc 222); Msg (D) , Hq SAC/ACB to Hq ADCOM/CC/ACB, "Con- 
tinued East Coast FSS-7 Operation," 20/2300Z Nov 79 (Doc 
223); Msg (0), CWCAD/CS to CINCSAC/CS, "East Coast AN/FSS- 
7 SLBM Detection and Naming Radar Continued Operation," 
19/1420Z Nov 79 (Doc 224). 

43. Msg (0), CINCNORAD/CC to Det 5 14 MWS/CC and Det 6 
14 MWS/CC, "Special Recognition," Z1/2000Z Dec 79 (Doc 225). 

44. Hist (S-Revw 31 Dec 99) ADCOM, 1977-78, pp 119-120 
(material used S-Revw 98); SSS (S-Decl 1 Dec 98), Brig Gen 

W. E. Ljndeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et aj_, 
"Position Paper on PARCS," 10 Jan 79, with 1 atch, "Position 
Paper" (this paper references Hq ADCOM/CT psg to USAF, "FY- 
79 05M Funding Distribution," 06/1501Z Dec 78.) This paper 
makes the point that although PARCS had marginal value as an 
ICBM sensor, and it was in that context that previous studies 
had examined its usefulness, it should be retained for SLBM 
coverage of northerly ocean areas and to provide satellite 
tracking support (Doc 226). 

45. Msg (S-Decl 1 Dec 98), Hq ADCOM/XP to Hq USAF/RDQ, 
"EPARCS," 26/214SZ Dec 78 (Doc 227). 

for Gen Allen from Gen Slay, "EPARCS," 03/23302 Jan 79 (Doc 

47. Msg (S-Revw 31 Dec 91), AFSSO/USAF/CC to AFSSO/AFSC/ 
CC, for Gen Slay from Gen Allen, "EPARCS," 10/1300Z Mar 79 
(Doc 229). 

48. Msg (S-Rem 31 Dec 91), Hq AFSC/CC to CSAF, 
"EPARCS," 16/1S16Z Mar 79. 

49. Msg (S-Revw 31 Dec 91) , SSO/ADCCM/CC to AFSSO/ 
DSAF/CC, for Gens Allen, J. A. Hill, and Slay, from Gen J. E. 
Hill, "EPARCS," 28/22202 Hat 79 (Doc 230). 

50. Msg (S-Revw 31 Bee 91), Hq AFSC/SDE to ESD/OC, 
"EPARCS," 16/1516Z Mar 79 (Doc 231). 

52. Msg (ti), Hq USAF/RDSD to Hq AFSC/OC, "EPARCS," 
23/16002 Mar 79 (Doc 232). 

53. Msg (S-Decl 2 Apr 98), CINCAD/CC to Hq USAF/RD, 
"EPARCS," 11/16452 Apr 79 (Doc 233). 

54. Msg (S-Decl 2 Apr 98), dq USAF/RD to CINCAD/CC, 
"EPARCS," 26/13S0Z Apr 79 (Doc 234). 

55. Msg (U), Hq AFSC/CV to Hq USAF/RD, "EPARCS," 
07/1555Z May 79 (Doc 235); Msg (U), Hq DSAF/XR to Hq ADCOM/ 
XP, "PARCS Radar Modification, PMD R-Q8043(5)," 01/15002 
Jun 79 (Doc 236) . 

56. CCS/Plans and Prograis Hist Rjt, (S-Decl 31 Dec 
2009), XPDK, Jul-Dec 79, Tab C (material used U). 

57. SSS (U), Brig Gen If. E. Lindeman, DCS/Pians, 
Policy and Requirements, ADC, to A/CS et al, "EPARCS Fund- 
ing," 29 Feb 80. 

58. Hist of ADCOM, 1977-78 (S-R;vw 31 Dec 99), pp 111, 
112 (material used (S-Rem 98)). 

59. Ibid., p 112; Msg (S-Revw 2 Jan 99), Hq FTD/XO to 
Hq ADCOM/DOF, "DSP Deployment, " 04/2030Z Jan 79; Msg (S-Decl 
1 Dec 99), CINCAD/CC to Hq USAF/XOO/RDS/PAX, "DSP Launch 
Initiation," 15/15302 Feb 79; Msg (S-Revw 31 Dec 79), CINCAD 
to AIG 951, "Commander's Semi-annual Summary, 1 Oct 78-31 
Mar 79," 17/0045Z Apr 79. 

60. Msg (S-Rev» 1 Dec 98), SAMSO/SZD to ASTC, Cape 
Canaveral/LV, "DSP Launch," 31/23552 Jan 79; Msg (S-Decl 

1 Dec 99), CINCAD/CC to Hq USAF/XOO/RDS/PAX, "DSP Deploy- 
ment," 07/2300Z Mar 79; Msg (S-Revw I Dec 99), SAMSO/SZD to 

6S5S ASTC, Cape Canaveral/LV, "DSP Launch Update," 02/ 
230OZ May 79; Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 98), AFSCF/SZB to SAMSO/ 
CC, "DSP Orbital Report," 11/09152 Jun 79; Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 
99), CINCAJ to AIG 951, "Commander's Semi-annual Summary," 
1 Apr-30 Sep 79," 16/10S7Z Oct 79. 

61. Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99), Hq ADCOM/DO to AFSc/SDO/ 
SDS, "Flight S Turnover," 10/23252 Jul 79 (Doc 237). 

62. SSS (S-Decl 1 Dec 91), Brig Gen If. E. Lindeman, 
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "Defense 
Support Program (DSP) Iirorovements Status," 24 Apr 79 (Doc 
238); Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99), Hq ADCOM/DO to Hq TAC/DO, "CM 
System," 28/1715Z Feb 79). 

63. Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99) , CINCAD/CC to Hq USAF/XOO/ 
RDS, "DSP Operational Satellites," 08/02S5Z Aug 79 (Doc 239). 

64. SSS (S-Decl 31 Dec 91), Brig Gen U. E. lindeman, 
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to CC st al, "Defense Support 
Program (DSP) Improvements Status," 24 Apr 79 (Doc 238); Msg 
(S-Revw 1 Dec 99), CiNCAD to AIG 951, "Commander's Semi- 
annual Summary, 1 Apr-30 Sep 79," 16/10S7Z Oct 79 (Hist 
File 22, Hist ADCOM/ADC, 1979); Msg (S-Kev* 1 Dec 2000), 
CINCAD to AIG 951, "Commander's Semi-annual Summary, 1 Oct 
79-31 Mar 80," 15/21302 Apr 80 (Hist File 22, Hist ADCOM/ 
ADC, 1979). 

65. Ibid.; Atch 2 (S-Decl 25 Jul 91), "DSP Paper," 
to Ltr (0), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCAD to Hon G. P. Dinneen, 
AsstSecDef (C3I), U.S., 31 Jul 79 (Doc 240). 

66. SSS (S-Decl 31 Dec 91), Brig Gen H. E. Lindeman, 
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM to A/DO, "Simplified Processing 
Station (SPS) Alternatives," 12 Jan 79, with 1 Atch, Msg 
(S-Decl 31 Dec 96), ADCOM/XP to Hq USAF/RDQ et al, same 
subject, 17/1930Z Jan 79 (Doc 241); Hist of ADCOM (S-Revw 

31 Dec 99), 1977-78, pp 115-117 (material used S-Revw-96). 

67. SSS (S-Decl 7 Feb 91), Brig Gen W, E. lindeman, 
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/DO et al, "Simplified 
Processing Station (SPS) Overseas Site," 20 Feb 79, with 

1 Atch, Msg (S-Decl 7 Feb 91), Hq ADCOM/XP to Hq USAF/PAX 
et d, same subject, 02/2125Z Mar 79 (Doc 242); Msg (S-Decl 
27 Mar 85), Hq USAF/PAX to Hq ADCOM/XP, "... (SPS) Over- 
seas Siting," 06/2000Z Apr 79; Msg (S-Decl 27 Mar 85), Hq 
ADCOM/XO to Hq USAF/PAX ct al, "... (SPS)Overseas Siting," 
02/21302 May 79 (Doc 243T7 SSS (S-Decl 27 Mar 85), Brig 
Gen If, E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/DO 
et al, " . . . (SPS)Overseas Siting," 10 Dec 79, with 1 
AtchT Msg (S-Decl 27 Mar 85), Hq ADCOM/XP to Hq USAF/PAX 

et al, " . . . (SPS) Overseas Siting," 17/14302 Dec 79 
(Doc 244). 

68. SSS (S-Decl 31 Dec 99), Brig Gen K.E. Lindetian, 
DCs/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/DO, "... (SPS) Alter- 
natives," 12 Jan 79, with 1 Atch, Msg (S-Decl 31 Dec 96), Hq 
ADCOM/XP to Hq USAF/RDQ et al, 17/19302 Jan 79 (Doc 241). 

69. Msg (S-Decl 31 Dec 98), Hq USAF/EDS et al to Hq 
ADCOM/XP, "DSP Data Survivability Enhancements," IS/18452 
Feb 79 (Doc 245). 

70. Ltr (S-Decl 17 Feb 85), Hon Charles 1(. Duncan, Jr., 
DepSecDef, 20 Mar 79; Ltr (S-Decl 28 Feb 85) (Doc 246), Gen 
J. E. Hill, CINCAD, to Hon Charles It. Duncan, Jr., DepSecDef, 
20 Mar 79 (Doc 247). 

71. Msg (S-Revw 31 Dec 79), CINCAD to AIG 9S1, "Com- 
mander's Semi-annual Summary, 1 Oct' 78-31 Mar 79," 17/00452 
Apr 79 (Hist File 22, Hist of ADCOM, 1979); Msg (D) , Hq 
USAF/XP/DO to Hq ADCOM/XP/DO, "PMD Clarification Request . 

. .," 27/1530Z Mar 79; Msg (0), Hq ADCOM/DOP to Hq SAC/3E/ 
DOC, "Integration of SPS into CCPDS," 18/1SI5Z Apr 79. 

72. Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99), Hq ADCOM/XP to Hq AFTEC/ 
TE, "Request for SPS lOT^E Extension," 25/22002 May 79 (Doc 
248); Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99), AFTEC/CC to Hq ADCOM/XP/DO, 
"SPS fOTSE Extension," 01/16362 Jun 79 (Doc 249); Msg fS- 
Revw 31 Dec »); Hq ADCOM/XP to Hq AFTEC/TE, "Continued 
SPS Test Requirements," 12/15002 Jun 79 (Doc 250). 

73. Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99), AFTEC/CC to Hq ADCOM/XP/ 
DO, "Termination of SPS I0TSE," 15/2030Z Jun 79 (Doc 251); 
SSS (S-Decl 14 Jun 91), Col 1. L. Churchill, Spec Asst, 
(J5), Asst DCS/Plans and Programs (NORAD), to A/CV et. al, 
"... (PMD) Change Request," 19 Jun 79 (Doc 252); Msg 
(S-Decl 14 Jun 91), CIIOD/CV to Hq USAF/RDS , "... 
(PMD) Change Request," 22/17302 Jun 79 (Doc 253). 

74. Ibid.; Msg (S-Decl 12 Jul 91),' Hq USAF/XO0/RDS to 
CINCAD/CV, ^Simplified Processing Stations," 12/18402 Jul 
79 (Doc 254). 

75. Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 98), SAMSO/SZJ to Hq AFSC/SDS, 
"Continued Simplified Processing Support," 01/14152 Aug 79 
(Doc 255). 

76. Position Paper on SPS Turnover (S-Revw 31 Dec 79), 
Atch to SSS (S-Revw 31 Dec 91), Brig Gen w, E, Lindeman, 
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CO et al, "SPS Turnover 
Status Review," 20 Aug 79 (Doc 256). 

77. SSS (0), Col IS. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and 
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "SPS Turnover Status Re- 
view," 14 Sep 79 (Doc 2S7jTHsg (I)), Hq SD/SZ to Hq ACCOM/ 
XPD, "... (SPS) Turnover," 31/23002 Oct 79 (Doc 258). 

78. SSS (S-Rev» 31 Dec 91), Brig Gen «. E. Lindeian, 
DCS/Plans and Prograis, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "SPS Turnover 
Status," 21 Nov 79 (Doc 259); Msg (S-Revw 1 Dec 99), OLA 
2162CS/LGK to 216CS Buckley ANGB," (S) Move of the SPS to 
Permanent Site," 07/1310Z Nov 79. 

79. Msg (S-Rev» 1 Dec 99), CINCAD/CS to CINCSAC/CS/ 
SX, "Management Transfer Date for OLAE Hq ADCOM Cornhusker 
AAP, HE," 16/22152 Nov 79 (Doc 260). 


1. Msg (S-Revw-31-Dec 99), CINCAD to AIG 951, "Cora- 
mander's Semi-Annual Summary, 1 Oct 78-31 Mar 79," I7/0045Z 
(in Hist File 22). 

2. Msg (S-Revw-99), CIHCAD to AID 951, "Commander' 5 
Semi-Annual Summary, 1 Ap-30 Sep 79," 16/01052 Oct 79 (ABC 
Hist File 22); SSS {'J), Brig Gen N.E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans 
and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CS et al, "MOTIF Transition Pro- 
gram," 18 Sep 79 {Doc 262), 

3. Activation: OLAA 46 AERODW, 1 Ap 79 (ADCOM SO G- 
174, 31 Oct 78); inactivation as OLAA 46 AERODK, 1 Oct 79 
(ADCOM SO C-173, 24 Sep 79); activated as OLAA, Hq ADCOM, 
1 Oct 79 (ADCOM SO G-173, 24 Sep 79; inactivated as OLAA, 
Hq ADCOM, 30 Nov 79 (ADCOM SO G-241, 30 Nov 79); activated 

as OLAA, 1st STRATAD, SAC 30 Sov 79 (SAC SO G-S9, 23 Sov 79). 

142-144 (mate- 
Rew 98). 

5. Msg (S-Decl-3) Dec 86), Hq PACAF to CKCP.AC (quot- 
ing Hq (JSAF Msg 02/1S30Z Jan 79), "Spacettack Radar Site," 
2S/2001Z Jan 79. 

6. Msg (S-P.evw-8 Feb 87), Hq USAF/XOO to Hq PACAF/XP, 
"Spacetrack Radar Site," 14/204S2 Feb 79. 

7. Msg (S-Rev»-8 Feb 87), CINCPAC" to PACAF, "Space- 
track Radar Site," 01/01502 Mar 79; Msg (S-Decl-31 Dec 85), 

8. Msg (S-Decl-Upon Site Announcement), Hq USAF/XOO to 
Ho PACAF/XP, "USAF/USN Memo of Agreement (MOA) on Siting the 
AN/GPS-10" 23/16102 Apr 79; Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/XP to Hq USAF/ 
XO0R, "USAF/USN Memo...," 27/2127ZApr79; Background Paper 
(S-Decl-1 Dec 98) on AN/GPS-10 Relocation Project, prep, by 
Capt Lenahan XPDS, 25 Jul 79 (Doc 263); Msg (S-Decl-Upon 
Notification to the Philippines), CNO to CINCPAC, 07/01042 
Sep 79. 

9. SSS (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), Col ».». Kenty, Asst DCS/ 
Plans and Progs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "Status Report on 
PACBAR Eastern and Western Sites," 11 Apr 79 (Doc 264); Ltr 
(U), Col B.R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans 5 Progs., ADCOM, to 

SAMSO/YN, U.S., U Apr 79; interest Paper (S-Rew-J Dec 98) 
on the ALTAIR Radar, prep. by Capt lenahan/XPDSG for Gen 
Moore's visit to SAMSO, 31 May 79 (Doc "265); Msg (S-Revw- 
Ap 2000), CINCAD to AIG 951, "Commander's Semiannual Summary 
1 Oct 79-31 Mar 80," 15/2130Z Apr SO. 

10. Hist (S-tem-31 Dec 93) ADCOM, 1977-78, pp 146-147 
(material used S-Reira 96); background Paper (U), on GEODSS, 
prep, by Capt Katson/XPDS, 17 Apr 79 (Doc' 266) ; Background 
Paper (U) on GEODSS, prep, by Capt Watson/XPDS, 1 Jim 79 
(Doc 267). 

11. Msg (C-GDS-31 Dec 85), Hq USAF/RDSD to Hq AFSC/ 
SDE/DE/FA, "GEODSS in Korocco and Mideast," 05/19302 Jan 79; 
Status," 51/1900Z Jan 75; Msg (il), USAF HGN CIVESGCER) At- 
lanta GA to Kq USAF/LBEE/LEEP, "FY-81 MCP, GEODSS, Morocco," 
09/18002 Apr 79; L;r (0), Col U.K. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans 5 
Programs, ADC0M, to Hq USAF/RDS/XOK/XOX, "Eastern Atlantic 
GEODSS Site," 19 Apr 79 (Doc '268). 

12. Msg (0), Ho USAF/XOKS/RDSD to Hq AFSC/SDE/DE/EA, 
"GEODSS Site Survey Status," 20/1930Z Mar 79 (Doc 269). 

13. Msg (O), Hq ESD to Hq ADCOM, "Relocatable GEODSS 
Study," 11/13252 Jun 79; Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/XP to ESD/OCTC, 
"GEODSS CAR Submission," 15/20002 Jun 79 (Doc 270). 

14. Msg (C-GDS-Declass Upon Completion of Negotiations), 
SF.CSTATE to AMEMBASSY Madrid, "GEODSS," 18/13172 Jan 80 

(Doc 271)'. 

15. Msg (C-Sevw-20 Dec 98), Hq SAC/SX to Hq USAF/PAX 
et il, "GEODSS," 28/22S8Z Jan 80. 

16.. Hist (S-Revw-31 Dec 99) ADCOM, 1977-78, p 132 (ma- 
terial used H). 

17. "The Talk of the Tom" Notes and Comment," TheNew 
Yorker , 8 Jan 79, p 23; Report by Robert Bazelle, NBC Night - 
ly News, 6:30 p.m., 30 May 79, 

18. Hist (S-Revw-31 Dec 99) ADCOM, 1977-78, p 132 ma- 
terial used U). 

19. Memo (D) from MLS-9/Larry Edwards, NASA, to MLS-9/ 
W. D. Goldsby, NASA, "Heavy Skylab Items," 3 Jan 79. 

20. Hsg (U), SecDef/PA to Sec AF et si, "Skylab Re- 
entry-Press Guidance," 04/03102 May 79. 

2). "The Talk of the Tovn" Notes and Comment, The Ken 
Yorker, 8 Jan 78, p 23. 

22. Ltr (S-Revn-1 Dec 99), Lt Col Michael Waynik, Chief 
Systems Division/DOPC, ADCOM, to ADCOM/DOFD, "Skylab Reentry 
Support," 20 Feb 79 (material used 0). 

23. A collection of news ankles pertaining to Skylab 
are included as (Doc 272). 

24. Msg (U), HQ NASA to Johnson Space Center et al, in- 
fo ADCOM/DOPC, "Skylab Reentry Simulation," 26/19122 Apr 79; 
Msg (U), MAD COC/DOFSC to NASA/MIS-9, "Skylab Decay Simu- 
lation (Object 5644) Debriefing Comments," 07/15002 May 79; 
Msg (II), HQ NASA to Johnson Space Center et al, info HQ 
ADCOM/DOPC, "Skylab Reentry Simulation," 15/1204 Z Jun 79. 

25. Hsg (U), JCS/J-3 to CINCAD et al. "Skylab Reentry 
Intonation," 23/14S02 May 79; Msg (D]7 HQ" USAF/XOD to 
ALMAJCOM-SOA, "Skylab Support," 27/20152 Jun 79. 

26. Msg (U), HQ N0RAD/D02 to SAMTEC/ROPA, "Skylab Re- 
entry Support," 1S/1S3SZ Feb 79. 

27. Msg (D), CINCNORAD/CC to OSAF, "NORAD Decay Pre- 
dictions for Skylab," 02/23352 Apr 79 (Doc 273]; Msg (II), 
NORAD COC/CC to HQ NASA/MLS-9, "Skylab NORAD Satellite Situ- 
ation Report (USSR) N'r. 1," 05/15552 Apr 79 (Doc 274); Msg 
(li) , HQ .WRAD/J-3 to CISCUNT et al, "Skylab NORAD Satellite 
Situation Report (SSSR), 15/17502 Hay 79 (Doc 275). 

28. "Skylab Maneuvered Into Men Orbit," Colorado Springs 
Sun, 21 Jun 79; Msg (U), NORAD COC/CC to NASA/MLS-9, "Skylab 
SORAD- Satellite Situation Report (NSSR), Nr. 13," 22/1920Z 
Jun 79. 

29. Hist Rpt (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), DCS/Operations, ADCOM, 

1 Jul-31 Dec 79, Atch 3, DOP Narrative, pp 1-2 (material used 
U); T/Sgt M. Bergman, "Skylab Succumbs," Interceptor Vol 21, 
!8, Aug 79, p 7; Msg (U), HQ AFSISC/IIB to' AtG SWO'f," NORAD 
Focal Point of Skylab Alert," 13/1710Z Jul 79. 

30. "Stargazers Take last look," Colorado Springs Sun, 
12 Jul 79, p 1-D. 

31 - Interceptor, Vol 21, 18, Aug 79, p 7. 

32. Ibid. 

33. Ibid; "Skylab Falls on Australia," Colorado Springs 
Sun, 12 Jul 79. 

34. Interceptor, Yd 21, ."8, Aug 79, p 7; Msg (U), NOCC 
NASA to Hq NASA/MSL-9, Info ADCOM/DOPC, "Public Release In- 
formation No. 19," 12/1358Z Jul 79 (Doc 276). 

35. Interceptor , Vol 2!, It, Aug 79, p 7. 

36. See newspaper artlclss (Doc "272) . 

37. Msg (ifl, NOCC NASA to HQ NORAD/DOPC et si, "Slylab 
Reentry Support," 12/2133Z Jul 79; Ltr (0), Gen J. E. Hill, 
CINCMORAD, to HQ NORAD/DO, "Congratula'tory Letter from Gen- 
eral Allen," 9 Aug 79; Ltrs, Hill to Lt Col T. J. O'Rourke 
and Major Thomas J. Cross, n.s., 13 Nov 79. 

38. Hist (S-Reire-31 Dec 99) ADCOM, 1977-78, pp 150-133 
(material used S-Revw 98). 

39. T/Sgt E. G. Lemon, "ADCOM Squadron Chalks Op 
Another Successful Launch," The Defense Line, NORAD/ADCOM 
Dir of Public Affairs/Information, Vol 7, W. 10, Jul 79; 
Ltr, Gen. J. E. Hill, CINCNORAD, to Col J. F. Fowler, Com- 
mander, 10th AERODS, n.s., 18 Jun 79. 

40. Hist (S-Revv-31 Dec 99) ADCOM, 1977-78, p ISO 
(material used U); Talking Paper (S-Decl-31 Dec 2005) on 10th 
AERODS-ADCOM Space Launch Advocacy Focal Point," Lt Col Cable 
XPDQ, 26 Apr 78 (Doc 277); SSS (S-Revw 21 Sep 98), Col J. If. 
Yocua, Actg Asst DCS for Space Operations, to N/DO (info), 
"NORAD Space Defense Relationships," circa 21 Sep 78 (Doc 278). 

41. Hist (S-Revw-31 Dec 99) ADCOM, 1977-78, p 153 
(material used U). 

42. Ltr {(J), It Gen R. C. Henry, Commander SANSO, to 
Gen J. E. Hill, CINCAD, n.s., 16 Jan 79 (Doc 279); SSS (U), 
Maj Gen B. L Brown to A/CC et al, "Reply to SAMSO/CC Ltr, 
16 Jan 79," 6 Feb 79 (Doc 23UJ; Ltr (U), Gen J. E. Hill, 
CINCAD, to tt Gen R. C. Henry, Commander SAMSO, n.s., 12 Mar 
79 (Doc 281). 

45. Msg (U), SAMS0/LV to Hq ADC0M/D02, "Revision of 

DMSP Memorandum of Agreement, " 02/20022 Apr 79; Atch, "D02S 
Narrative," to ICS/Operations Staff Agency Historical Report, 
1 Jan 79-30 Jun 79. 

44. Msg (0), Hq ADCOM/BC to SAMSO/CC and 10 AERODS/CC, 
"ADCOM SSP/DMSP Launch Support," 26/15S5SZ Apr 79 (Doc 282), 

45. SSS (II), Major Krasinski, XPDSD to A/XP, "Revised 
Program, Management Directive for Defense Meteorological 
Satellite Program," 2 May 79 (Doc 283). 

46. Msg (U), Hq ADCOM/XP to Hq USAF/RDS!., "Program 
Management Directive for Defense Meteorological Satellite 
Program," 03/2004Z May 79 (Doc 284). 

47. Msg (tl), Hq USAF/RDS to ADCOM, "Switch of DM5? to 
ATLAS E/f Launch Vehicle," 10/17002 Jul 79. 

48. Interest Paper (U) on Issues Relating to the USAF 
Space Support Program, Defense Meteorological Satellite Pro- 
gram and the Tenth Aerospace Defense Squadron (10 AERODS), 
prepared by Caot J. M. Mullen, A/D02S, 6 Jul 79 (Doc 285); 
Interest Paper" (U) on Switch of DMSP from Thor to ATLAS E/F 
Launch Vehicle, prepared by Capt J. M. jullen, A/D025, 15 
Aug 79 (Doc 286); SSS (II), Brig Cen K. E. Lindeman, DCS/ 
Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC, "Switch of Defense 
Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) from Thor to ATLAS," 
15 Aug 79 (Doc 287); Msg (S-DecM Dec 98), Hq ADCOM/CC to 
Hq USAF/RDS, "Military Space Launch Capability," 17/21102 
Aug 79 (Doc 28S). 

49. ADCOM SO G-206, 23 Oct 79; Lt'r (U), Cen J. E. Hill, 
CIttCAD, to Col J. F. Fowler, Commander 10th AERODS, n.s., 

2; Oct 79 (Doc 289). 

50. SSS (U), Brig Gen If. E. Lindenan, DCS/Plans and 
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al_, "Briefing - Transition of 
DMSP Satellites from Thor to ATLAS Boosters," 27 Nov 79 
(Doc 290). 

51- Ltr(0), Gen J. E. Hill, CIKCAD, to Gen A. D. Slay, 
Commander, AFSC, 'n.s., 5 Dec 79 (Doc 291). 

52. SSS (U), Brig Gen If. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and 
Programs, A0C0M, to A/CC, "USAF Site Survey 78-21 . . .," 2 

53. SSS (S-Decl-29 Jan 91), Brig Gen If, E. Lindeman, 

DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM to A/CC, "tISAF Site Survey 78- 
21," 29 Jan 79; Msg (S-Decl-29 Jan 91), Hq ADCOM/XPD to 
AFSC/CC, "ADCOM Addendum to USAF Site Survey 78-21," circa 
6 Feb 79 (Doc 292). 

54. Msg (C-Decl-1 Dec 85), Hq USAF/RDS to Hq AFSC/SD/ 
TE/DE, "Satellite Control Capabilities," 07/I41SZ Jun 79; 
Msg (C-Decl-1 Dec 85), Hq AFSC/TE/SD/DE to SAMSO/CV/CX/YE/ 
LV/DE, "Satellite ODerations Center (STC II)," 07/211SZ Jun 
79; SSS (0), Col 1, I. Churchill, Actg DCS/Plans and Pro- 
grams, ADCOM, to A/CC, "STC II/SOC/GPS SCC Siting Criteria," 
19 Jun 79 (Doc 293); Msg (C-Decl-31 Dec 85), SAMSO/CX to Hq 
AFSC/TEV/SDS/DEP, "Satellite Control Capabilities," 19/01402 
Jun 79; Background Paper on Consolidated Satellite Opera- 
tions Center (U), prepared by Maj deJonckheer, XP, n.d., 
circa 2 Jul 79 (Doc 294). 

55. SSS (U), Brig Gen If. E. LinSeman, DCS/Plans and 
Prograjis, ADCOM, to A/DO et si, "SAMSO Briefing on Consoli- 
dated Space Operations Center," 2 Jul 79, with 1 etch: CSOC 
Briefing presented at Hq AFSC 25-26 Jun 79 (Doc 29S). 

56. Background Paper on Consolidated Space Operations 
Center (CSOC), (11), prepared by Lt Co! Beamer/XPDSD, 25 Jul 
79; Msg (0), TAC/CV to AFSC/CV, "Consolidated Space Opera- 
tions Center," 25/01002 Jul 79. 

57. Msg (B), Hq USAF/XO to AFSC/CV/SD/TE et al, "Con- 
Band Participation in Developing a Space Mission Operations 
Concept," 29/17302 Jun 79; SSS (U), Brig Gen K. E. Lindeuan, 
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC, "Consolidated Space 
Operations Center (CSOC)," 13 Jul 79 (Doc 295). 

58. Background Paper on Consolidated Space Operations 
Center (CSOC), (U), prepared by Lt Col S. Beamer/XPDSD, 25 
Jul 79.. Col Beamer was the ADCOM representative on the group 
which wrote the concept of operations. 

59. SSS (U), Col L. L, Churchill, Actg DCS/Plans and 
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC, "STC II/SOC/GPS NCC, Siting Cri- 
teria," 19 Jun 79 (Doc 293); Msg (U) , CINCAD/W to AFSC/CV, 
"Consolidated Space Operations Center (CSOC)," 09/18402 Jul 
79 (Doc 297); Msg (0), CINCAD/CC to CSAF/CF, "Consolidated 
Space Operations Center," 09/2045Z Jul 79 (Doc 798). 

60. Msg (U), Hq USAF/PAX to Hq AFSC/CV/TE/SD/DE, "CSOC 
Site Survey," 23/19402 Aug 79 (Doc 299); Msg (U) Hq ADCOH/XP 

to Hq USAF/PAX, "CSOC Site Survey," 30/1330Z Aug 79 (Doc 
300); SSS (U), Col H. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, 
ADCOH, to A/CC, "CSOC Site Surrey," 14 Sep 79 (Doc 31)1). 

61. Hsg (C-GDS-26 Sep 85), CSAP/CV to CIEAO, "Conso- 
lidated Space Operations Center (CSOC) Site Selection," 28/ 
20S52 Sep 79 (Doc 302). 

62. Ltr (S-Decl-2 Oct 99), Gen J. E. Hill, CINCAD, to 
Gen Lew Allen, CSAF, n.s., 4 Oct 79 (Doc 503). 

63. Hsg (U), OSAF/PAM to Hq AFSC/PA et al, "CSOC/NORAD 
Public Announcement," 20/20001 Dec 79 (DoclOTT. 

64. Ibid. 

65. "Springs Area is the Logical USAF Space Command 
Site," Colorado Springs Sun, 18 Oct 79, p 29; Sandra Dillard, 
"Kramer Announces Springs~!fill Be Site of Space Center," 
Denver Post , 2 Mov 79, p 3; Denise Gamlno, "Kramer: City to 
Get Space Center," Colorado Springs Sun, 2 Nov 79, p 1; 
Michael D. Green, "Space Center: 2,550" Jobs Predicted," 
Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph , 2 Nov 79, p 1; Michael 

D. Green, "Air Force Confirms Space Center Reports," Colorado 
Springs Gazette Telegraph , 21 Dec 79, pp 1-2; Colorado Springs 
Gazette Telegraph , 50 Tjec 79, p B-l. 

66. Brochure (S-Decl-31 Sec 2000), "Required Operation- 
al Capability for Space Defense Operations Center (ADCOH ROC 
5-76), 15 Oct 76 (Doc 143, Hist of ADCOM, 1976), 

67. Briefing (5-Decl-l Dec 98), "SPADOC Implesentation 
Plan," prepared by ADCOM/XP, n.s., Atch to Ltr (U), Maj Gen 
R. W. Fye, CofS, ADCOH, to All DCSs and Chiefs of Special 
Staff Elements, "Implementation of SPADOC Phase One," 9 May 
79 (Doc 30S); SSS (S-DecI-1 Dec 98), Brig Gen If. E. Lindeman, 
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "Status of 
SPADCCS/SPADOC," 31 Jan 79 (Doc 306); SSS T5-Decl-1 Dec 98), 
Col I*. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOH, to A/CC, 
"Status of SPADCCS/SPADOC," 23 Feb 79 (Doc 307). 

68. Memo (S-Decl-31 Jan 96), Dr. G. P. Dinneen, Asst 
SecDef (C3I), for SecAF and CJCS, "Space Defense Operations 
Center," 1 Mar 79, with 1 Atch "SPADOC Responsibilities" 

(Doc 308). 

69. Msg (S-Decl-8 Mar 85). Hq USAF/XO to ADCOM/XP, 
"Plan for Establishing SPADOC," 12/17O0Z Mar 79. 

70. SSS (S-Decl-31 Jan 96), Brig Gen K. E. Lindeman, 
DCS/ Plans and Programs, ADCOH, to A/CC et al, "Approval of 
(■'car Term SPADOC Implementation Plan, 15 MaT 79; SSS (S-Decl- 
1 Dec 98), It Col W. H. Ague, Exec Off, DCS/Plans and Pro- 
grams, ADCOH, to A/CC et al, "Status of SPADCCS/SPABOC," 28 
Mar 79; SSS (S-Decl-1 Dec~9"8), Lt Col W. N. Ague, Exec Off, 
DCS/Plans and Prograis, ADCOH, "Approval of SPADOC Imple- 
mentation Plan," S Apr 79 (Doc 309). 

71. Hist Report (S-Ded-31 Dec 2000), DCS/Plans and 
Programs, ADC0.M, Jan-Jun 79. 

72. Plan (S-Rew-1 Dec 98), "Phase I SPADOC Activation 
Plan," Atch to Ltr (U), Haj Gen R. H. Fye, CofS, ADCOM, to 
DCSs and Chiefs of Special Staff Elements, same subject, 16 
Jul 79 (Doc 310) . 

75. Briefing (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), "SPADOC Implementation 
Plan," prepared by ADCOH/XP, n.d., Atch to Ltr (U), Maj Gen 
R. IV. Fye, CofS, ADCOM, to DCSs and Chiefs of Special Staff 
Elements, "Implementation of SPADOC Phase One," 9 May 79 
(Doc 305); Msg (S-Rew-6 Sen 99), CIMORAD CS to Hq USAF/ 
RD/XO et al, "NORAD Combat Operations Center (NCOC) Trans- 
ition to NDRAD Cheyenne Mountain Complex Improvements Program 
(427M)," 10/20052 Sen 79; Msg (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), Hq DSAF/DO 
to Hq SAC/XP/DO et ai, "SPADOC Activation Announcement," 28/ 
2300Z Sep 79; Hist Report (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), DCS/Operations, 
ADCOM, Jul-Dec 79. 

), DCS/Ope-.-ations, AD- 

75. Ltr (S-Revw-6 Feb 99), Brig Gen H. E. Lindeman, 
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to Hq BSAF/XO. "Identification 
of Interfacing Agencies," 13 Jul 79 (Doc ill); SSS (S-Revw- 

1 Dec 98), Col If. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Prograis, 
ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "SPADOC Team Visit to Wash DC Area," 
26 Sep 79 (Doc 312); Msg (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), Hq ADCOM/XP to 
Hq USAF/RDS, "PMD Direction for SPADOC Interfaces," 19/1630Z 
Dec 79 (Doc 313), 

76. Hist (S-Revw-31 Dec 99) ADCUM, 1977-78, op 153-154 
(material used S-Revw-98); Hist (S-Rew-1 Dec 2000) CONAD, 
1970, p 99; Hist (S-FRD) COWD/ADC, FY 75, pp 104-105; 
Commander's Foreword (S-FRD), to. Aerospace Defense Command 
Objectives Plan, 1979-1993, May 78; Talking Paper (S-Revw- 
31 Dec 99) on ASAT System Development, prepared by Maj R. J. 
Vercruyse (XPDS), 29 Feb 80 (D c 314). 

77. SSS (S-Revtr-IB Jan 99), Brig Gen If. E. Lindeman, 
DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al_, "Space Defense 
Systems Programs Status," 2 Apr 79, with"~2 atchs, SSS (S- 
Decl-1 Dec 98), "Space Defense System Program Status," 21 
Mar 79, and Memo (S-Revw-18 Jan 99) for Secretaries of the 
Military Departments et al_, "U.S. Anti-Satellite Requirements 
Analysis, Phase II," Ada D. J. Murphy, USN (Ret.), Deputy 
Undersecretary of Defense (Policy), 25 Jan 79, with atch, 
"Terms of Reference" (Doc 31S). . 

78. SSS (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), Col It R. Kenty, Asst DCS/ 
Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, "Space Defense 
Program Status," 19 Jan 79 (Doc 316). Similar status reports 
data 1 Mar 79, 21 Mar 79, 20 Apr 79, 16 May 79, 20 Jun 79 and 
30 Jul 79 are included as {Docs 317 thru 322); SSS (S-Decl- 
11 Jan 98), Brig Gen W. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, 
ADCOM, to A/CC, "Executive Summary-High Energy laser Techno- 
logy Applications Study," 12 Jan 79'(Doc 323); Background 
Paper (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), on the "USAF Antisatellite (ASAT) 
Program," 6 Aug 79 (Doc 324); SSS (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), Col »'. 
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC et al, 
"Laser Weapons for Space Defense," 26 Sep 79, with 1 atch, 
"Talking Paper (S-Revw-1 Dec 98) on Ground Based Laser ASAT 
Program" with 2 atchs, Memo for the Undersecretary of De- 
fense for Research and Engineering (S-Revw-27 Mar 99), James 
E. Williams, Actg Asst SecAF (Research, Development and Log- 
istics), "DOD High Energy Laser (HEL) Program," 23 Apr 79, 
and Memo for the Assistant SecAF (Research, Development and 
Logistics) (S-Revw-7 May 89), from 11. J. Perry, Undersecre- 
tary of Defense for Research and Engineering, "Air Force 
Medium Range Applied Technology (MRAT) Program," 29 May 79 
(Doc 325). 

79. Msg (S-Revw-31 Dec 99), CINCAO to AIG 951, "Com- 
mander's Semiannual Summary, 1 Apr-30 Sep 79, 16/01052 Oct 
79 (Hist File 22); SS (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), Col If. R. Kenty, 
Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC, "Air Launch 
Miniature System Operational Concept," 8 Feb 79 (Doc 326); 
SSS (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), Brig Gen If. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and 
Programs, ADCOM, "Space Defense System Program Status," 1 Mar 
79; ADCOM/XP Historical Report (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), Jul-Dec 79. 

80. Msg (S-Revw-31 Dec 98), Hq (ISAF/SDS to Hq AFSC/SD, 
"Space Defense System Program Limited Operational Capabili- 
ty (LOC) ," 05/21Z5Z Mar 79; Msg (S-Decl-31 Dec 98), Hq SAMSO/ 
VN to Hq ADCOM/XP, 'Prototype Miniature Air-launched Segment 
(PMALS) Limited Operational Capability (LOC)," 17/0030Z Mar 

79; Msg (S-Decl-1 Dec 98), Hq ADCOM/XP to Bq SAMSO/YN, 
"... (PMALS) United Operational Capability (LOC)," 4 Apr 
79 (Doc 327); Msg (S-Ded-31 Dec 98), Hq ADCOM/XPD to SAMSO/ 
YNA, "... (PMALS) Limited Operational Capability," 18 Apr 
79 (Doc 328); Msg (S-Decl-30 Apr 98), Bq AFSC/SD to Hq DSAF/ 
RDS, "Space Defense System Program. . . (LOC)," 04/113SZ May 
79 (Doc 329); Msg (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), Hq ADCOH/XP to JCS/J-3/ 
J-S, Hq SAMSO/YN, "Space Defense Systei Program . . . (LOC)," 
25 May 29 (Doc 330); Msg (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), Hq ADCOM/XP to 
SAMSO/YN, "Space Defense Program User Concerns," 25 May 79 
(Doc 331); SSS (U), Col W. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and 
Programs, ADCOM to A/CV, "Space Systems Orientation Visit, 
30-31 Jul 79," 25 Jul 79, with 1 atch, "Interest Paper (S- 
Revw-1 Dec 98), on the Prototype Mission Operations Center," 
prepared by Maj Vercruyse (XPDSD), 25 Jul 79 (Doc 332). 

81, SSS (li), Brig Gen W. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and 
Programs, ADCOM, to A/CC, "Background Paper on ASAT Require- 
ments Briefing," 30 Oct 79, with 1 atch, "Background Paper 
(S-Revw-29 Oct 99), on ASAT Requirements Study," prepared by 
Maj Vercruyse (XPDS) , 29 Oct 79 (Doc 333) . 

82. Ltr (S-Revw-1 Dec 98), Gen J. I. Hill, CINCAD, to 
Ada D. J. Murphy, USN (Ret.), DUSD (Policy), n.s., 4 Dec 79 
(Doc 334). The scope of CINCAD's role, responsibility, and 
authority with regard to satellite survivability and space 
defense had been examined within the ADCOM staff during late 
1978 and early 1979, and an intrepretation was provided to 
the staff by Gen Hill on 11 June 1979 for, use in planning. 
See SSS (U), Brig Gen K. E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, 
ADCOM to A/DO et al, "Interpretation of ADCOM Mission," 13 
Oct 78, with 1 atch, "Position Paper (S-Ded-31 Dec 2000), 

on ADCOM Responsibility for Space Defense," n.d. (Doc 335); 
Ltr (0), Maj Gen B. L Brown, DCs/Operations , ADCOM, to 
ADCOM/XP, "Interpretation of ADCOM Mission," 9 Nov 78, with 
1 atch'(U), "DO Rewrite of Position Paper on ADCOM Responsi- 
bility for Space Defense," n.d. (Doc 336); Ltr (U), Gen J. 
E. Hill, CINCAD, to ADC0M/D0/IN/KR/XP/LG, "Interpretation of 
CISCAD Responsibility and Authority in the Area of Satellite 
Survivability," 11 Jun 79 (Doc 337). 


1. Booklet (S-Rew-00), NORAD Forces and Program Change 
Summary ,(tt), 1 Jan 80; Hist of ADCOM, i Jan 77-31 Dec 78, p 

2. ACCOM Special Order G-16, 1 Feb 79; ADCOH SO G-24, 
13 Feb 79; ADCOH SO C-34, 6 Mar 79; ADCOM SO G-60, 23 Apr 
79; ADCOM SO G-71, 10 May 79; ADCOM SO G-87, 5 Jim 79; ADCOM 
SO G-88, S Jun 79; ADCOM SO G-97, 7 Jun 79; ADCOM SO G-9S, 

7 Jun 79; ADCOM SO G-I13, 11 Jul 78; ADCOM $0 G- 173, 24 Sep 
79; ADCOM SO G-181, 28 Sep 79; ADCOM SO G-201, 21 Dec 78; 
ADCOM SO G-20S, 19 Oct 79. 

3. ADCOM Special Order G-16, 1 Feb 79; ADCOM SO G-34, 
6 Mar 79; ADCOM SO G-87, S Jun 79, ADCOM SO G-88, 5 Jun 79; 
ADCOM SO G-94, 7 Jun 79; ADCOM SO (f-113, 11 Jul 78; ADCOM SO 
G-133, 18 Jul 79; ADCOM SO G-144, 18 Sep 78; ADCOM SO G-174, 
31 Oct 78; ADCOM SO G-I83, 14 Nov 78; ADCOM SO G-201, 21 Dec 

4. Hist (S-Rew-07) (material used U), ADCOM, Jan 77- 
Dec 78, p 44. 

, Policy, Programs and 
led S-Oecl-97), ADCOM, 

7. Interest Paper (U), ADCOM DCS/Ope rat ions, "Summary 
of 25NR JSS Transition Actions," 3 Jan 7 9 (Doc 35~8); Hist Rnrt 
(S-Decl-00) (material used U), ADCOM DCS Plans and Programs, 
Jan-Jun 79 (Office of Hist, file 25.16); feus release (0), 
"JSS Implementation is Continuing on Schedule," The Defense 
tine; Jun 79^ N0RAD/A0COM Dir of Public Affairs, Vol 7 "lib - 

"T"0To'c" 397. 

8. Hist Rprt (S-Decl-00) (material used U) , ADCOM DCS/ 
Plans and Programs, Jan-Jun 79 (Office of Hist, file 25.16). 

9. Memo (U), ADCOM DCS/Plans and Programs to DCS/ 
logistics, "JSS Conversion Probln, - 21st Air Division," 
16 Jul 79 (Dor 54077 

10. Interest Paper (U), ADCOM DCS/Plans and Programs, 
"24 Air Div JSS Transition," 8 Jan 79 ([) oc 541); ADCOM 
PAD 79-1 (U), "Inactivation 780 RAPS, Fortuna AFS, B," 
12 Mar 79 (Doc 342); M1COMPAD79-S (U), "Activation Oi,AE and 
Inactivation 785 RADS, Finlcy AFS, K0," 6 Apr 79 ([) oc 3 -t 3 > ■ 

ADCOM PAD 79- Z (U), "Inactivation 778 DADS, Harve AFS, NO," 2 
Mar 79 (Doc 344); ADCOM PAD '9-3 (U), "Inactivation 786 RADS, 
Minot AFS, ND," 16 Mar 79 (Doc 345); ADCOM PAD 79-4 (U) , "In- 
activation 779 RADS, Ophein AFS, MT," 21 Mar 79 (Doc 346). 

11. Msg (U), ADCOM to 23AD, 1115152 May 79 (Doc 347); 
Talking Paper (D), ADCOM DCS/Plans and Programs, "23AD Sensor 
Site Transition to JSS," 11 Sep 79 (Doc 348); ADCOM PAD 79-11 
(U). "Inactivation 692 RADS, Baudette AFS, MN," 18 Jun 79 (Doc 
349); Msg (II), CINCAD to 23AD, 0613152 Jul 79 (Doc 350); ADCOM 
PAD 79-12 (II), "Inactivation 753 RADS, Sault Sainte Marie AFS, 
MI," 22 Jun 79 (Doc 351); ADCOM PAD 79-13 (D), "Inactivation 
665 RADS, Calumet AFS, MI," 2 Jul 79{Doc 352); ADCOM PAD 79- 
17 (0) , "Activation Operating Location AC, 23ADS, Nashvauk 
City, MN," 28 Aug 79 (Doc 353). 

12. Interest Paper (U), ADCOM DCS/Plans, Policy, Pro- 
grams, and Requirements, "JSS Actions Pertaining to 26AD," 
i Oct 79 (Doc 354). 

13. Msg (U), 20NR to ADCOM, 202000Z Jul "9 (Doc 355); 
Ltt (U), ADCOM DCS/Operations to DCS/Plans and Programs, 
"Dauphin Island, AC, Height Finder (HF) Radar andUHF Radios." 
30 Jul 79 (Doc 356); Ltr (U), ADCOM DCS/Plans and Programs 

to DCS/Logi5tks, "Dauphin Island Contract Maintenance," 1 
Aug 79 (Doc 357); Msg (U), ADCOM to 20NR, 2415002 Aug 79 (Doc 
358): Msg (U), Defense Fuel Rgn to ADC, et al . , 1914002 Sep 
79 (Doc 359); Msg (D), ADCOM to 3246 Test Kg, 202230Z Sep 79 
(Doc 360); Msg (»), 2DNR to ADCOM, 2014102 Sep 79 (Doc 361); 
Msg (D), CINCNORAD to 20 NR, 271800Z Sep 79 (Doc 362); Msg 
(U), 20NR to ADTAC, 3019302 Nov 79 (Doc 363). 

14. Hist (S-Revw-00) (material used U), ADCOM, Jan 77- 
Dec 78, pp 47-48, 

15. Hist Rprt (S-Decl-00) (material used U), ADCOM DCS/ 
Plans, Policy, Programs, and Requirements, Jul-Dec 79 (Of- 
fice of Hist, file 25.16); Msg (U), OSAF to ALHAJCOM, 2818301 
Mar 79 (Doc 364) . 

16. Ibid. 

17. Hist Rpt (S-Decl-00) (material used U), ADCOM DCS/ 
Plans and Programs, Jan-Jun 79 (Office of Hist, file 25,16). 

18. Ibid.; Hist (S-Revw-00) (material used D), ADCOM, 
Jan 77-Dec"737 pp 47-48. 

19. Msg (S-Revk-99) (material used U), CINCAD to sub- 
units, 151905 Oct 79 (Doc 365); Hist Rprt (S-Decl-00) ("ate- 

used II), ADCOM DCS/Plans, Policy, Programs and Require- 
s, Jul-Dec '9 (Office of Hist, file 25.16), 

20. Hist Rprt (S-Decl-00) (material used U), ADCOM DCS/, 
Jan-Jun 79 (Office of Hist, file 2S.16). 

21. Hist (S-Revw-00), ADCOM, Jan 77-Dec 78, p 51. 

22. Hist Rprt (5-Decl-OO) (material used U), ADCOM DCS/ 
Plans, Policy, Programs, and Requirements, Jul-Dec 79 (Office 
of Hist, file 25.16); Journal (S-Revw-00) of Discussions and 
Decisions, Canada-U.S., 153rd PJBD Meeting held at Royal 
Reads Military College, British Columbia, 12-15 Jun 79, pp 
11-12; Journal (S-Revn-00) of Discussions and Decisions, 
Canada-U.S., 154th PJBD Meeting held at Canadian Forces Base 
North Bay, Canada, 10-12 Oct 79, p 19. 

23. Ltr (U), NORAD DCS/Operations to DCS/Plans and Pro- 
grams, "Relocation of ROCCs," 28 Feb 79 (Doc 366); Talking 
Paper (U), DCS/Plans and Programs, ACCOM "SK Region Operations 
Control Center (ROCC)," 16 Apr 79 (Doc 367); Ltr (U), NORAD 
DCS/Plans and Programs to DCS/Operations, "Relocation of 
ROCCs," 2 Mar 79 (Doc 368). 

24. Ltr (U), SORAD DCS/Operations to DCS/Plans, Policy, 
Programs, and Requirements, "JSS/ROCC Site Designators," 5 
Dec 79 (Doc 569); Ltr (U), ADCOM DCS/Operations to ADCOM Rgns, 
"Joint Surveillance System (JSS) Site Designators," 28 Mar 

79 (Doc 370). 

25. Hist (S-Revw-00) of ADCOM, Jah 77-Dec 78, p 56. 

26. Msg (U), AFTEC to (JSAF, info ADCOM, 1821517. Jan 79 
(Doc 371); Msg (U), AFTEC to UStf, info ADCOM, 0221322 Feb 79 
(Doc 372); Msg (U), AFTEC to ADCOM, 0720302 May 79 (Doc 373); 
Msg (U), ADCOM to ESD, 09205II May 79 (Doc 374); Msg (D), ESD 
to AF'fEC, info ADCOM, 211915Z May 79 (Doc 375); Msg (U), AFTEC 
to USAF, info ADCOM, 062040Z Jul 79 (Doc 576); Msg (U), ESD to 
ADCOM, 0618002 Aug 79 (Doc 577); Msg (S-Rcvw-99), CMCAD to 
ADCOM sub-units, 1519052 Oct 79 (Doc 365); Talking Paper (S- 
Decl-85), ADCOM DCS/Plans, Policy, Programs 6 Requirements, 
"CONUS Over-the-Horkon Backscat'ter (OTH-B) Radar System (Ul," 
15 Mar 79 (Doc 378). 

2?. Msg (S-Revw-87), OSAf to AFSC, info ADCOM, 2013453 
Sep 79 (Doc 379); Msg (II), ESO to AFSC, info ADCOM, 031900Z 
Oct 75 (Doc 380); Msg (U) , AFTEC to ESD, info ADCOM, 1216323 
Oct 79 (Doc 35i); Msg (S-Decl-87), USAF to AFSC, info ADCOM, 
0S1S502 Dec 79 (Doc 382). 

28. Msg (S-Revw-99), CINCAD to ADCOH sub-units, 15190SZ 
Oct 79 (see Doc 365). 

29. Journal of Discussions and Decisions (S-Revw-CO), 
153rd Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD), Canada-U.S., 
Royal Roads Military College, British Columbia, 12-15 Jun 
79, p 15 (Office of Hist, file 24.3). 

30. Ltr (U), ADCOM DCS/Plans and Programs to DCS/Comp- 
troller, "Seek Skyhook 05(1 Funding," 22 Jan 79 (Doc 383); Ltr 
(U), ADCOM DCS/Plans and Programs to Det 1, 5AWTEC/TOEP, "AN/ 
FYQ-47 Maintenance Manning for Cudjoe Key AFS, FL, 24 Jan 79 
(Doc 384); Talking Paper (U), SEEK SKYHOOK, IS Mar 79 (Doc 
385); Ltr (S-Revw-99), ADCOM/DCS/Operations to DCS/Plans and 
Programs, "SEEK SKYHOOK Operational Need/Utility IV)," 27 Jul 
79 (Doc 386); Msg (U), ADCOM to JCS, 132300Z Nov 79 (Doc 387); 
Msg (C-Revu-85), 20NR to ADCOH, 141930Z Dec 79 (Doc 388): Msg 
(U), ADCOM to JCS, 21172DZ Dec 79 (Doc'38S); Hist Rprt (S- 
Decl-00), ADCOM DCS/Plans and Programs, Jsn-Jun 79 (Office 

of Hist file 25.16). 

31. Msg (S-Sem-98), USAF to ADCOM et al, 202030Z Jill 
79 (Doc 390). 

32. ADCOM Objectives Plan (S-FRD) (material used S- 
Deci-00), 1983-1990, pp 75-77. 

33. Journal (S-Rero-00), Discussions and Decisions, 
Canada-O.S., for the lS5rd PJBD Mtg, Royal Roads Military 
College, British Columbia, 12-15 Jun 79; Ltr (S-Revw-99), 
ADCOM DCS/OperatiOftS to Combat Onsrations Center, "Comman- 
der's Semiannual Summary (SITREP)," 30 Mar 79 (Doc 391); Hist 
Rprt (S-Decl-00), DCS/Plans, Policy, Progrons, and Require- 
ments, Jul-Dec 79 (Office of Hist, file 25.16). 

54. Msg (S-Revw-99) (material used 0), CINCAD to sub- 
units, 1S1905Z Oct 79 (Doc 365); Msg (U) , NORAD to SDKQ, 
1918302 Nov 79 (Doc 392), 

35. Ltr (D), NORAD DCS/Communications, Electronics, and 
Computer Resources (J-6) to DCS/Operations, et a^, "NORAD/ 
ADCOM E-3A Communications Plan," 25 Apr 79 (Doc 393). 

36. Hist (S-Revs-Ou), ADCOM, Jan 77-Dec 78, p S3; Ltr 
(U), NORAD DCS/Operations to DCS/Plans and Programs, "State- 
ment of Operational Seed (SON) for NORAD/ADCOM E-3A Battle 
Staff Enhancements," 27 Apr 79 (Doc 394). 

37. Msg (S-Revw-93), ZSNR to CINCN0RA3, 3019152 Apr 79 
(Doc 395). 

58. Ltr (0), Gen Hill, CINCNORAD, to Gen Creech, Coidr 
of TAC (no subj), 30 Apr 79 (Doc 396). 

39. Opnl Eval Rprt (S-Revw-96), 25th NORAD Rgn (AMALGAM 
MUTE 79-6), 19-29 Aug 79 (Doc 397). 

40. Statement of Operational Meed for NORAD/ADCOM E-3A 
Battle Staff Enhancements, 18 Oct 79 (Doc 398); Msg (U), 
NORAD to TAC, 061600Z Jul 79 (Doc 399). 

42. Ltr (S-Revw-91), ADC to All ADCOM Rgns, et a}_, 
"What's Going On (U)," 11 Sep 79 (Doc 400). 

43. Journal (S-Revw-00) of Discussions and Decisions, 
Canada-U.S., 154th PJBD Meeting herd at Canadian Forces Base 
North Bay, Ontario, 10-12 Oct 79. 

44. Kist Rprts (S-Decl-00), NORAD DCS/PUns, Policy, 
Programs, and Requirements, Jan-Jun 79, and Jul-Dec 79 (Of- 
fice of Hist, file 25.16). 

43. Msg (S-Deci-4 Jan 85), CISCAD to JCS, "17th DSES 
Deactivation," 091930! Jan 79 (Doc 401); Msg (S-Decl-19 Jan 
85), JCS to CWCAD, "17th DSES Deactivation," 252039Z Jan 79 
(Doc 402); Interest Paper (S-Decl-54), ADCOM DCS/Operations, 
"Deactivation of 17th DSES," 11 Jan 79 (Doc 403); Interest 
Pacer (S-Decl on Act), ADCOM DCS/Plans. 8 Programs, "17 DSES, 
Malmstroa AFB, MT (U)," 8 Jan 79 (Doc 404). 

46. Msg (C-Decl-85), USAF to ADCOM, "EB-S7 Programming 
and Training Requirements (U)," 0619502 Feb 79 (Doc 405). 

.47. Msg (U), CINCAD to USAF, "Electronic Countermea- 
sures Training for Interceptor Aircrews," 011S30Z May 79 (Doc 

48. Msg (S-Revw-15 May SS), ADCOM to USAF, "EB-S7 Task- 
ing (0)," 2522202 May 79 (Doc 407); Interest Paper {S-Decl- 
85), ADCOM DCS/Operations, "EB-57 OPLAN 4409 (U)," 27 Apr 79 
(Doc 408). 

49. Msg (U), ADCOM to USAF, "Request for 1SS DSEG Ac- 
tive Duty Augmentation," 202000Z Jun 79 (Doc 409); Msg (U), 
ADCOM to Z4AD, "Inactivation of 17DSES," 12 Sep 79 (Doc 410); 
Hq ADCOM SO G-133 (U), 18 Jul 79 (Doc 411); ADCOM PAD 79-7 
(U), "Inactivation 17DSES, Malmstroa! AFB, MT," 25 May 79 

(Doc 412); Msg (C-Decl-85), USAF to ADCOM, "Early Closure of 
the 17 Defensive System Evaluation Sq (DSES) (U)," 162000Z 
Apr 79 (Hoc 413); Msg (0), CINCAD to USAF. "Permanent Dis- 
play of EB-57 Aircraft," 2623102 Apr 79 (Doc 414). 

50. Hist (U), The Air Defense of the United States, 
Hq ADC, Jun 51, p 21S; ADCOM SO-20S (U), 19 Oct 79 (see 
Spt. Docs to this history.). 

51. Plan (S-Revw-99), North American Aerospace Defense 
Objectives Plan 1982-1989 (U), Jul 79, o SS (ADM! Hist 
file 24). 

52; Hist (S-Sevw-00), ADCOM, Jan 77-Dec 78, p 69. 

53. Hist Rprt (U), Directorate of Air Defense Opera- 
tions, DCS/Operations, ADCOM, Jan-Jun 79 (ADCOM Hist file 

S3. Msg (S-Decl-20 Dec 83), NORAD to AMCC, et at, 
"NORAD force Summary As Of 20 Dec 79 (U)," 201620Oec 79 
(Doc 415}. 

56. NORAD Reg 55-3 (S-Revu-98), "CIKNORAD/CINCAD 
Weapons Readiness States and Readiness Postures (If)," 16 Oct 
78 (see Doc 55 to Hist of NORAD, Jan 77-Dec 78, p 197. 

57. ADC Movement Order MO-1 (U), 1 Nov 78 (Doc 416). 

58. Hist (S-Decl-98) of ADCOM, Jan-Dec 76, pp 44-45; 
Hist Rprts (S-Decl-00) OCS/Plans, Policy, Programs, and 
Requirements, Jan-Jun 79, Jul -Dec 79 (Office of Hist, file 

59. Msg (S-Decl-84), HO DA to CINCAD, et al, "Army 
CONUS and Alaska Defense (U)," 0420152 Jan 79 (Toe 417). 

60. Memo (S-Decl-86), ADCOM DCS/Operations to CINCAD, 
et al, "CONUS/Alaska Air Defense (IJ)," 18 Jan 79 (Doc 418); 
Msg (S-Decl-86) , USAF to ADCOM, "Removal of ADA (U)," 
2718152 Jan 79 (Doc 419); Msg (S-Decl-31 Dec 86), AAC to 
NORAD, "Removal of ADA (U)," 2805001 Jan 79 (Doc 420); Msg 
(S-0ecl-86), ADCOM to USAF, "Removal of ADA (U)," 2900502 
Jan 79 (Doc 421); Staff Summary Sheet (S-Decl on PA) ".NORAD 
DCS/Operations to CINCNORAD, "Removal of ADA (D)," 1 Feb 79 

(Doc 422); Discussion Paper (U), NORAD DCS/Operations, "Amy 
CONUS and Alaska Air Defense," (Doc 423); Talking Paper (5- 
Decl-87), NORAD DCS/Operations, "ADA Loss in Florida (0)," 
13 Mar 79 (Doc 424); Memo (S-Decl-99), CJCS to SecDef, "Army 
CONUS and Alaska Air Defense (U)," 13 Feb 79 (Doc 42S). 

61. Memo (S-Decl-85) for Chairman of the JCS from Sec- 
Def, "Army CONUS and Alaska Air Defense (U)," 28 Mar 79 (Doc 
(Doc 426). 

62. Msg (S-Decl-81), HQ DA to CDRTRADOC, info ADCOM, 
"Any CONUS 5 Alaska Air Defense (U)," 022151Z Apr 79 (Doc 
427); Msg (U), JCS to CINCNORAD, et al, "Army CONUS/Alaska 
ADA (U)," 061S42Z Apr 79 (Doc 428); Msg (U-FOUO), CDR FORSCOM 
to ADCOM, "Any CONUS/Alaska ADA (U)," 0920I2Z Apr 79 (Doc 
429); Msg (U), CDR USAMILPERCEN to DA, et al, "Personnel on 
Orders to the 31st ADA BDE, Homestead AFB, FL and the 1-43 
ADA BS, AS 111000Z Apr 79 (Doc 430) ■ Msg (U), CINCNORAD to 
31st ADA, et al, "Army CONUS/Alasla ADA," 1521S7: Apr 79 
(Doc 431). 




(Major Command) 

Previous Designation : Same. (See Hist of ADCOM, 1 Jan '7 - 
31 Dec 78, p 225.) 

Authority: DAF ltr 322 (AFOMO 797F), 10 Nov SO, -subj; 
Designation of Tactical Air Comsiand and Air Defense Command a 
Major Commands, Reassignment, Establishment, Discontinuance, 
i of Certain Other Units and Establishments. 

Higher Hq : HQ OSAF .'. ■;■ '•■ 

Commander -in 'Chief : General James E. Hill '. ' . 
t . :... .,<•;. ■ 6 Dec 77 - 31 Dec 79. '■, 
It Gen James V. Hartinger 
1 Jan 80 - 

(SO AA-2179, 20 Dec 79, 
HQ USAP, Wash, DC) 

Vice Commander in Chief : Maj Gen William C. Burrows 
: : 19 Aug 77 - 31 Jan 79 
Haj Gen Bruce K. Brown 
s^^jr**^. ..^.w^-v; ■*-~'i"pgb 7g<**£2*Fe6*y9^ ****"-' 
■(ADCOM SO G-14.,. 25 Jan 79) 
Maj Gen Warren- C. Moore 
■ 12 Feb 79 - 
■ (50AA-2145, .19 Dec 78, 

Assigned Units: 

4799th OSAF Special Activities Squadron, Colorado Springs, 

ADCOM Combat Operations Center, Cheyenne Mountain Complex, 


■ Units; Reassigned to Hq ADCOM from 1 Oct to' 1 Dec 79 Cue to ' 


'Classified CONF by 4961 Security Classification Guide, 1 Jun 79, 
Declassify on 1 Dec 98. 

2nd Communications Squadron, Buckley Field, CO {per ACCOM 

SO G-182, 28 Sep 79), 
5th Defense Space Communications Squadron, Woomera Aprt, 

Australia (per ADCOM SO G-182, 28 Sep 79). 
6th Missile Warning Squadron, Otis AFB, MA (per ADCOM SO 

G-18Z, 28 Sep 79). 
. 7th Missile Warning Squadron-, Beale AFB, CA (per ADCOM SO 

G-182, 28 Sep 79). • 
12th Missile Warning Squadron, Thule AB, Greenland (per 

ADCOM SO G-182, 28 Sep 79). 
20th Missile Wanting Squadron, Eglin AFB, Ft (per ADCOM SO 

G-182, 28 Sep 79).. 
4684th Air Base Group, Sondrestrom AB, Greenland (per ADCOM ■ 

SO G-182, 28 Sep 79). 

Assigned UnitsLost : .■ dSs. ; ; 

10th Aerospace DefenTei'Squadron, Vandenberg AFB, CA 

(inactivated 1 »ov,:?9, per ADCOM SO G-206, 23 Oct 79). 
4603rd Management Engineering Flight, Colorado Springs, CO 

(inactivated 1 Oct;p* per ADCOM -SO G-181, 28 Sep 79). 
4690th Aerospace Intelligence Squadron, Cheyenne Mountain 

Complex, CO (inactivated 7 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-246, 

S Dec 79). 

Units Beassigned'to the. Tacti cal Air Comm and fTAC): 

.,.,!. ^ir^DefenseiWeaponsJsCentei.iJyndall AFBv<-H.»(reassigned-.on-"i 
' 1 Oct 79,*per ADCOM>SO G-205, 19 Oct 79). 
■ Air Forces, Iceland.'FPOUew York 09571 (reassigned on l'-Oct 
- 79, per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79). 
20th Air Division, Fort Lee AFS, VA (reassiped on 1 Oct 79, 

per ADCOM SO G- 205, 19 Oct 79), 
21st Air. Division, Hancock Field, NY (reassigned on 1 Oct 
79, per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79). 
■ 23rd Air Division,' Duluth IAP, MN (reassigned on 1 Oct 79,' 
' ■ - per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79). 

24th Air Division, ; ilalmstrom AFB, MT (reassigned on 1 Oct 
"'79, per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 'Oct 79). 
25th Air Division, McChord AFB, WA (reassigned on 1 Oct 79, 
. per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79). 
26th Air Division, Luke AFB, A2 (reassigned on 1 Oct 79, 

per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79). 
425th Munitions Support Squadron, Colorado Springs, CO 
(reassigned on 1 Oct 79, per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79). 

Units Reassigned to the Strategic Air Command (SAC) : 

2nd Communications Squadron, Buckley Field. CO (reassigned 
on 1 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-24.1, 30 Nov 79). 

5th Defense Space Communications Squadron, Woomera ASH, 
Australia (reassigned on 1 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-241, 
30 Nov 79). 

6th Missile Warning Squadron, Otis AFB, HA (reassigned 
on 1 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-241, 30 Nov 79). 

7th Missile Warning Squadron, Beale AFB, CA (reassigned 
on 1 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-Z41, 30 Nov 79), 

12th Missile Warning Squadron, Thule AB, Greenland (reas- 
signed on 1 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-241, 30 Nov 79). 

14th Missile Warning Squadron, MacDill AFB, PI (reassigned 
, .on 1 Dec 79, per AD01M SO G-241, 30 Nov 79) • -.. 

'"' Pi ' 

20th Missile Warning Squadron, Eglin AFB, PL (reassigned 
on 1 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-241, 30 Nov 79). 

46th Aerospace Defense King, Peterson APB, CO (reassigned 
on 1 Oct 79, per ADCOM SO G-20S, 19 Oct 79). 

4602nd Computer Services Squadron, Peterson AFB, CO (re- vs. 
assigned on 1 Oct 79, per ADCOM SO G-205, 19 Oct 79). '" 

4614th Contracting Squadron, Colorado Springs, CO (reas- 
signed on 1 Oct 79, per ADCOM SO G-20S, 19 Oct 79), 

4684th Air Base Group, Sondrestroi AB, Greenland (reassigned 
on 1 Dec 79, per ADCOM SO G-241, 30 Nov 79). 

Unit Reassigned to the Air Force Coasunications Service (AFCS) : 

47S4th Radar Evaluation Squadron, Hill AFB, UT (reassigned 
on 1 Oct 79, per ABC0M SO G-205, 19 Oct 79). 

Units Attached ^Nonejj.,.,.., ,„..,. ■,.....-,.. _ .. ,«_w«..i ■ — -w-;-*- 

Station : Peterson AFB, CO 

Aircraft Flown : None. 

Awards and Decorations : None. 

Emblem : No change. ~ 

" Classified SECRET by 4961 Security Classification Guide, 
1 Jun 79, Declassify on 1 Dec 98. 

1. The Air Force Coiumkations Service (AFCS) was re- 
designated the Air Force Coiaunications Command (AFCC), effec- 
tive IS Nov 79. 

SOURCE: ADCOM Special Orders G Series, for 1979 (see supporting 
documents to this history); N0RA0/ADC0M Pamphlet 20-S (U), subj: 
Directory of NORAD/ADCOM Units, IS Mar 79 (Doc 432). 



(Binational Command) 

Pr ev ious De signation : Sane, (Established on 12 September 
l'957"per agreement of the Canadian Minister of National 
Defence and the JCS on 6 September 1957. The NORAD Agreement 
Has concluded on 12 May 19S8 for a period of ten years and 
renewed on 12 May 1968 and 12 May 1973. A now NORAD Agree- 
ment was concluded on 12 May 197S for a period of five years. 
[Agreement TIAS 8085 effected by exchange of notes, signed 
at Washington, May 8, 1975, effective May 12, 1975.) 

Authority : Exchange of notes, Ambassador of Canada and U. S. 
Secretary of State, May 12, 19S8, Washington, D. C. 

Higherjj: ■ JCS 

Commander in Chief: Gen Earle E. Partridge 

(12 Sep 57 - 31 Jul 39) . 
Gen Laurence S. Kuter 

(1 Aug 59 - 31 Jul 62) 
Gen John K. Gerhart 

(1 Aug 62 - 31 Mar 65) 
Gen Dean C. Strother , ... 

«.\-*.*&r>»i~*™"~ (1 Apr 6S '- 31 Jul 66) 
.. .. Gen Raymond J.- Reeves- " ■ 

(1 Aug 66 - 31 Jul 69) 
Gen Setli J. McKee 
■ (1 Aug 69 - 30 Sep 73) 
Gen Lucius D. Clay, Jr. 
■ • -■ (1 Oct 73 • 31 Aug 75) 

■^ . Gen Daniel James, Jr. 
fl Sep 75 - 6' Dec 77) 
■ Gen Janes E. Hill 
...,,: .:.- ■■ ■:- ■ (6-Dec 77 -' 31'De'c 79)' ■' 
Lt Gen James V. Hartinger 

(1 Jan 80 ■ 
' (SO AA 2179, 20 Dec 79 
HQ.OSAF, Wash., D.C.) 

Deputy Commander in Chief: Air Marshal C. Roy Slemon, RCAF 

(12 .Sep S7- 15 Aug 
Air Marshal C. R. Dunlap, RCAF 

(IS Aug 64 - 24 Aug 67) 
Air Marshal William R. MacJrien, RCAF 

(25 Aug 67 • 22 Jan 69) 

(Lineage and Honors Data - NORAD (contd)) 

It Gen Frederick R. Sharp, CF 
(23 Jan 69 - 14 Sep 69) 

Lt Gen Edwin V, Reyno, CF 
05 Sep. 69 - Sop 72) 

Lt Gen R, J. Lane, CF 
( Sep 72 - Oct 74) 

Lt Gen Richard C. Stovel, CF 
( Oct 74 - Sep 76) 

Lt Gen David R. Adanson, CF 
( Sep 76-7 Aug 78) 
"Lt Gen Kenneth E. Leeis, CF 
( 8 Aug 78 - ) 
(Hsg (U), KD HQ to CINCNORAU, 
201240Z Mar 78)* 

Assigned Units : 

Baits Assigned Directly to HQ NORAD : 

Alaskan NORAD Region, Elmendorf AFB, Anchorage, AS 
KORAD/ABCOa Joint Support Group, Colorado Springs, CO 
20th SORAD Region, Ft. Lee AFS, TA 
■ 21st NORAD Region, Hancock Field, Sew York 

22nd SORAD Region, CFB North Bay, Hornell Heights, 

Ontario, Canada 
23rd NORAD Region, Duluth LAP. UN „_„.«».__! . «. 
"\'*'-24th'!fORAD;Regio3fl!al)llst™ AFBi HT 
25th NORAD Region, McChord AFB, WA 
26tb NORAD Region, Luke AFB, AZ 

Assigned Units Lost : None 

Units Attached : None 

Station : Colorado Springs, CO 

Aircraft Flown : None 

Awards and Decorations : None 

Emblem : Approved by JCS (J1DM-447-72) , Memorandum for 
the Commander In Chief, North American Air 
Defense Command, subj: NORAD Organizational 
Emblem and Medallion, 31 July 1972. (See 
attached sheet J 

SOURCE: Histories of NORAD/CONAD/ADC, 1957-78 
(material used V) ; msg (U) , ND HQ to CINCNORAD, 
201240Z Mar 78 (Doc 433) . 


Alaskan Air Command 
Antiballistic missile ■ 
"■'Air Defense "Artiller)"'-': - ! ' 
Aerospace Defense Center 

ADCOS Air Defense Combat Operations Staff 

ADP Automated Data Processing 

AJTAC • Air Defense Tactical Air Command 

ADWC Air Defense Weapons Center 

A£ Architectual engineering 

AERODS Aerospace Defense Squadron 

AERODW Aerospace Defense King 

AF ■ Air force 

AFB Air Force Base 

AFCS Air Force Communications Service , 

' AFENA Air Force Element, NORAD/ADCOM ; 

AFETR Air Force Eastern Test Range 

AFLC Air Force Logistics Command 

AFMPC Air Force Military Personnel Center 

AFS Air Force Station 

AFSC Mr Force specialty code/Air Force Systems 

AFTEC Air Force Test and Evaluation .Center 

.AFWTR,.^ ,. 1 Air..Force.»estern Test .Range;..-'.-.,-.. .*-•.-. — j~. ._ 

■AK ' 'Alaska .... ; 

AL Alabama " .'."'. . 1/. 

ALCOP ' Alternate Command Post ■'." 

ALMV ■ Air launched miniature vehicle " , 

ALTAIR' . ARPA Long Range Tracking and. Instrumentation- 

ANG '■; Air National Guard 

ANGB Air National Guard Base 

ANMCC Alternate National Military. Command Center 

ANR ' Alaskan NORAD Region 

APDM ■ Amended Program Decision Memorandum ■ 

ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency ' ' ■'■ ' 

ARTCC.-'., . Air, Route -Traffic Control Center. •■ 

ASAT Anti-satellite System 

ABACS Airborne. Warning and Control System 

AWACW Airborne Warning and Control King 

AWC . Air Weapons Controller 

AW{F) ' ' All Weather {Fighter}' 

AZ Arizona 

BAA Backup aircraft authorized 

BLOS Beyond line of site 

BMEWS Ballistic .Missile Early Warning System 

BMO Ballistic Missile Office 

CA, . • . 

.California ■' , . .',.....■..;;..■.■ ,-.:.v — '-■ 


' Continental Alr'DefensY Integration North 


Canadian Forces 


CONUS Ground Station 


Commander in Chief 


Commander in Chief, Aerospace Defense. Command 


Commander in Chief, Atlantic 


Commander in Chief, North American Air Defense 



Commander in Chief, Strategic Air Command 


' Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff 




Combat Operations Center 


Commander, Alaskan Air Command 


Continental United States 


Chief of Staff, United States Air Force 


Consolidated Space Operations Center 


Communication System Segment 


Designated alert detachment 


Department of the Air Force Civilians 



4 "Deptity<Chief'-of'Staff" 


' Distant Early Warning 

Defense Meteorological Satellite Program . 

Department of Defense 

Defense System Acquisition Review Committee 

Defense System Fvaluation Squadron 

Defense Support Program 
•Development Test -and Evaluation 

Design Verification Period 

Detection and Warning ... 

Electronic couiiter-couhtermeasure 
Electronic countermeasure 
Enhanced Distant Early Warning 
Environmental Impact Assessment 
Environmental Impact Statement 
Enlisted Men 

Electromagnetic compatibility 
Electromagnetic pulse 
Electromagnetic radiation 
Equivalent Operational Capability 

Enhanced Perimeter Acquisition Re 

Characterization System 
Experimental Radar Systems 
Electronic Systems Division 
Experimental test^ site 

Federal Aviation Administration 
Fighter Interceptor Group 
fighter Interceptor Squadron 
Florida.-,- ■ '•-■- * 
■ Final operational capability 
Follow-on Interceptor 
Any Forces Command 
Fiscal year 

General Accounting Office ■_■:'.; 
Ground-to-air Transmitter /Receiver , ' 
■ Ground based laser 
Ground communications 'network ■ 
Ground-based Electro-optical Deep Space 

Greenland, Iceland, and United Kingdom 
Guided missile test 

Global Positioning System NORAD. Control 
■ Center 


General Telephone Service Corp". 

w'SMW^-tfKS'WV/ : *&&**■ 

Hughes .Aircraft Company ," - ' 
' Hawaii ; - ■' 

International Business Machines 

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile 
That is-. * :,. 
Inspector General ' ; 
■Initial operational capability : 
Initial, operational .test. and. evaluatit 
Implementation period 
International Security Affairs 
Instrumented test vehicle 

Joint Chiefs of Staff 

Joint Enroute Terminal System 

Joint Manpower Program 

Joint Surveillance System 

Joint Table of Distribution 

Joint U.S. /Canada Air Defense Study 

LA Louisiana 

IOA letter of Offer and Acceptance 

LOC Limited operational capability 

tRR long range radar 

Lti letter . ..... 

MA Massachusetts 

MAJCOM Major command 

MCP Military Construction Program 

MD ' Maryland 

■ME Maine ' "' 

Memo Memorandum 

MEW Missile Early Warning 

MFP Major Force Programs 

MG/8 Message Generator/Recorder 

MGT Mobile Ground Terminals 

MI Michigan 

MIP Missile impact predictor 

MN Minnesota 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOT Ministry of Transportation 

MOTIF Maui Optical Tracking and Identification 

MPC Military Personnel Center 

MPF ■ Multipurpose Facility 

Msg Message ■ 
. Mt.— *.~ . Mount „«,*«-,*» • .. 

MT Montana 

MUX. ■•, "Multiplexor ' '• 

MHO Missile Warning "Officer 

MWS Missile Warning Squadron 

NADIS NORAD/ADCOM Digital Interface System 

NAS NORAD Alerting System/Naval Air Station 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration " 

NATO North American Treaty Organization 
NAVSRASUR U.S. Navy Space Surveillance System 


NORAD Cheyenne Mountain Complex 


NORAD Combat Operations Center' 


■ North- Dakota ■ • ■ 


National Defence Headquarters 


National Emergency Airborne Command Post 


National Environmental Policy Act 


New Jersey . 


New Mexico 


National Military Command Center 


NORAD Operational Evaluation 


North American Air Defense Command 


NORAD Region 

Operator display console 
Overseas ground station 

Operating location 

Operations and maintenance 

Operational plan 


Operations Review Board 

Office of the Secretary of Defense 

Operational Support Module 

Over-the-horizon Backscatter 

Pennsylvania-. .. ■■ • 
Primary aircraft authorized 
Pacific Air Forces 
Pacific-radar barrier 
Perimeter acquisition radar 
Perimeter Acquisition Radar Attack 

Characterization System 
Programs Document 
Permanent Joint Board on Defense 
Program Management' Assistance Group 
Program Management Directive - 
Program Objective Memorandum' '— - 
Planning, Pr6gram»'ingT : and';BUdget : ing""System 
Programming Plan- ■ ■ "' ■'' ' - 

■ Radio Corporation of. America 
," Radar Control Center '' 
' Republican-Colorado 

Research and' Development ' ---.--■ 

Retired ,..'.-., 

Radar height data converter 

Reduction in' force 

Reliability, maintainability and availability 

Required -Operational Capability-. . <■• - 

Region Operations Control Center 

Strategic Air Command 
Semi-automatic ground environment 
Space and Missile" Systems Organization 
South Carolina 
Space Division 
Secretary o£ Defense 
Sensor evolution development 
Sea-launched ballistic missile 

SHOPS Space Mission Organization Planning Study 

SMSA Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area 

SOC Satellite Operations Center/Statement of 

Operational Concept 

.SON, . ... Statement of.. pperational..need ., -.,,. 

SOPC Shuttle Operations and Plaining' Center 

SPADATS Space Detection and Tracking System 

SPADOC Space Defense Operations Center 

SPO System Program Office 

SPS Simplified Processing Station 

Sq Squadron 

SQT System qualification training 

St. Saint 

STC Satellite Test Center 

TAG' Tactical Air Coimmd 

TCV Technical Control Unit 

TDDL Tine division data 'lini 

TDY Temporary duty £.'.*■ -. 

TFS Tactical Fighter '"Squadron 

TFW Tactical Fighter Wing ■ 

TNCC Tyndall NORAD Control Center 

TOR Terms of Reference 

TPR Trained personnel requirement 

TRW Thompson-Ramo-Woolridge Corp.' 

TV Television '/;,. ■ :; ' ■•' 

JX^. ,. t -,.Iexas,„. r ™« t ,4 '. ' ■" ''■.-.•■ ■--,-- --* 

IMF. " ■■ Ultra high frequency-' ''. '"' '■.'■ •'" .' 

(IK United Kingdom' ■ 

UMD Unit Manning Document . 

U.S. United. States ■• .. 

USA United States Army" 

USAF United States Air Force 

USAFE United States Air Forcjs in Europe 

U.S.C. United States.-'Code '. • . ; ... . 

USCINCEUR United States Commander in Chief , 'Europe 

USEUCOM United States European Command 

USN United States Navy ■ 

■USSR' ' Union of Soviet Socialist Republics "■ 

VA Virginia 

\ Readiness State 


(S) Msg, CINCNORAB ;o HDHQ, sub] : Renewal of NORAD 
Agreement (U), 13224SZ Nov 79. 

(S) Hsg, SecState to AKEMBASSY Ottawa, subj: CINCNOSAB 
Billet (0), 192318Z Sep 79. 

(C) Hsg, AMBIBASSY Ottawa to SecState, subj: CINCNORAD 
Billet til), 282009Z Dec 79. 

{U) U.S. Air Force Biography, Lieutenant General James V. 

(S) Hsg, .AMBIBASSY Ottawa to SecState, subj: Reorgani- 
zation of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning 
Systems (0), 221654Z Dec 78. 

(S) Msg, AMBIBASSY Ottawa to SecState, subj : Reorgani- 
zation of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning (U), 
230005Z Dec 78. 

, (C). Msg,_SecState to AMBffiASSYOttawa, subj': Reorganiza- 
tion of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning Sys* 
terns; (U)-, 0820192 Jan- 79. ■ -. ■. 

(C) Msg, SecState to AMBIBASSY Ottawa, subi : Reorganiza- 
tion of 'USAF Air'Defense and Surveillance/itaniing Sys- 
tems. (U), 1318501 Jan 79. 

(C) Msg, USDAO -to SecState, subj: Reorganization of USAF 
Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning Systems (U), 
162233Z Jan 79. ' ' 

12. (S) Msg, USDAO to SecState, subj: Reorganization of USAF 
Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning Systems CD), 

' 262135Z Jan 79. ' ' 

13. (S) Msg, SecState to AMEMBASSY Ottawa, subj: Reorganiza- 
tion of USAF Air Defense and Surveillance/Warning Re- 
sources, 080750Z Feb 79. ■ ■ ■ 

14. (S) Msg, USDAO to USAF, subj : Reorganization of USAF Air 
Defense and Surveillance/Warning Resources (U), 

151847Z Feb 79. 

15. (S) Mr to Admiral Robert H. Falls, Chief of the De- 
fence Staff, Canadian National Defence Headquarters, 
'from Cen David C. Jones, Chairman, JCS, no subject, 

8 Mar 79. 

16. (U) Meeting Minutes of the Second Combined Air Defense 
Reorganization Planning Conference, 9-11 Jan 79, with 
5 atch. 

17. (u) Talking/Discussion Paper on ADCOM Reorganisation, 

28 Feb 79, with 3 atch. 

18. (S) Memo' for the Record, subj: Proposed Reorganization 
of USAFAir Defense, and Surveillance/Warning Resources, 

. 28 Feb-79j;SwUh;l-atdi.. . 

19. (U) Meuo for Gen lev Allen/Gen James A. Hill from Under- 
secretary of the Air Force Dr. Hans Mark, subj: ADCOM, 
22 Feb 79:;;.. 

20. (U) Me.o for It Gen Hilliam Creech from Dr. Hans Mark, 
no subject, 20 Oct 77. 

21. (U) Memo for Gen Anderson from It Col Owen Woraser, 
WAR, Hq IISAF, subj: ADCOM Reorganization Proposal, 

221 (S) Ltr'tO'Gen Lew Allen, CofS, USAF, from Gen J. E. 
■ -Hill, CINCAD,' n.d:, 22 Feb' 79 (transmitted 'by DACOM'ff 
secure teletype network) . • 

23. (S) Itr to Gen James E. Hill , CINCN05AS/ABC0M, fron Gen 
Lew Allen, CSAF. no subject, -19 Mar 79. ■ 

24. (D) Ltr to "Gen Lew Allen, CSAF, from Gen Janes E, Hill, ' 
no subject, 16^.Apr 79. ; . t .. 

25. (If) ADCOM Programming Plan 79-3, Aerospace Defense Re- 
organization, 5 -Mar 79. 

26. (ti) Msg, ADCOM to SAC,' subj: Aerospace Defense Reorgan- 
ization, 022215Z Apr 79. 

27. (U) ltr to All BCSs/CMefs of Special Staff Elements 
from Gen James' E. Hill, subj: ADCOM Reorganization, 
29 Mar 79. 

28. (U) Msg, CIOORAD to AIG 7142, subj: ADCOM Reorganiza- 
tion, 2915012 Mar 79. 

(U) A collection of articles from the Colorado Springs 
Gazette Telegraph and Colorado Springs Sun pertaining 
to the proposed phaseout of ADCOM for tn¥"year 1979. 

,.,(U) .Transcript of' tape jscocdfd-^^.^^i^Sji^IICgM/w 
•:OI,"'"Aif 'Force/Colorado "Springs' Public Meeting, '20 Apr • 

31. ft') Ltr to Gen James E. Hill, CINCNORAD, from Mr, William 
J. Hybl, Attorney at Law, no subject, 26 "Apr 79, with 1. 

32. (0) ltr to The Honorable Ken Kramer, House of Represent- 
atives, froa Mr. R. W. Gutmann, Director, U.S. General - 
Accounting Office, no subject, 2S Jun 79. . :;-:*:*>%*< 

33. (B) 32 CF.R. Z&de of Federal Regulation; Section 214.7; 
as quoted in Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Re- '. 
quest for Preliminary Injunction and Denying Motion to 
Dismiss or for Summary Judgment in Civil Action No. 79- 
F-4S1 (Killett et al v. Brown et al), United States 
District Court Tor the District oFColorado, 23 May 79. 

34. (U) Study, "Environmental Impact Assessment for the 
Proposed Reorganization of the USAF Air Defense and Sur- . 
veillance Resources/'April 1978. ' '■ 

35. (U) "Negative Determination for Proposed Reorganization 
of USAF Aerospace Defense Forces/' Col F. J: Smith,'. 
Chairman, HQ USAF Environmental: Protection Committee', 

17 Hay- 78. ■ ■'■''■ 

36. (U) "Supplement to Negative Determination and Environ- 
mental Assessment for Proposed Reorganization of USAF -g. 
Aerospace Defense Forces," Col Francis J. Smith, Chair-'" 
man, HQ USAF Environmental Protection Committee,' 7' Feb 

37. (U) "Supplement No. 2 to Negative Determination and 

'■"■ ■ 'Environmental Assessment tor' Proposed Reorganization! of 
USAF Aerospace Defense Forces," IS Mar 79.. 

38. (S) Msg, CINCAD to USAF, subj : Environmental Analysis 
of ADCOM Reorganization (U), 012100Z Feb 79. 

39. (S) Msg, USAF to CINCAD, sub) : Environmental Analysis 
of ADCOM Reorganization (U), 1318302 Mar 79. 

40. (0) Summons, Civil Suit, Richard N. Willett et al v. 
Harold Brown et al, Civil Case No. 79-F-451,~Tn"The 
United StatesTjstrict Court for the District of 
.Colorado,. .17,;Apr '79 ... "■ ...... ... •■■ -■.'..,■„ 

'41 . (U) Answer, Civil. Suit Willett et al y. Brown et al , 
Civil Case No. 79-F-451, in theTJnlted States Mstritt 
Court for the District of Colorado, no date, 

42. (U) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of 
Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary 
Judgment, Suit of Willett v. Brown, Case No. 79-F-451, 
in the United States District Court for the District of 
Colorado, ;by Joseph Dolan, U.S. Attorney, 18 Jul 79.- 

43. (U) Report, "Formal Environmental Assessment for the 
Proposed Reorganization of the USAF Air Defense and 
Surveillance/Warning Resources," 29 Jun 79, revised 

11 Jul 797 ' ■ . 

44. (U) Motion to Amend Order, Suit of Willett v. Brown, 
Case No. 79-F-451, in the United States District Court 
for the District of Colorado, by Joseph Dolan, U.S. 
Attorney,. 23 Jul. 79. ...... 

5i 4S^ ; (UrProposH-'Stipplemental'0rder7 SuifofBillett v.-"-**** 
Brown, Case No,- 79-F-451, in the United States. district 
Court for' the. District of Colorado, 24 Jul- 79. : 

46. (U) itr to'CTet.'al from' Col john'W. Fahniey, ADCOM/JA, 
subj : Litigation: ADCOM Reorganization, 20 Jul 79; 

47. (U) Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion . 
to Dismiss or, in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, 
Suit Willett .v. Brown, Case No. 79-F-4S1, in the United 
States District Court for the District of Colorado, 

.1 Aug 79, 

48.' (U)- Defendants' Reply. to 'Plaintiffs' Opposition to. Motion' 
to Dismiss or, in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, 
' Suit Willett V. Brown, 'Case'No. 79-F-4S1, in the United 
States District Court for the District of Colorado, 
Joseph Dolan, U.S. Attorney, 8 Aug 79. 

49. (U) Minute Order, Suit Willett v. Brown, Case No. 79- 
F-4S1, in the United States District Court for the 
District of Colorado, 13 Aug 79. 

SO, (U) Order, Suit Sillett v. Broun, Case No. 79-F-451, in 
the United States District Court for the District of 
Colorado, signed by Judge Finesilver, 21 Aug 79. 

51.. -. (FOUO) .Msg, USAF. .to -ADCOM,- subj : -ADCflM-Reorganizstion, . 
" : ■■'•2513511 A|i'j;. ! 79"-'" '■'■■ •""■' 

52. (U) ltr to Maj Gen tf. C. Moore, VC, ADCOM, from Maj Cen 
F. A. Haeffner, DCS/Plans, TAC, no subject, IS May 79. 

53. (U) Ltr to Maj Gen Fred A. Haeffner, Deputy Chief of 
Staff, Plans, TAC, from Maj Gen Warren C. Moore, VC, 
ADCOM, no subject, 29 May 79. 

54. ■ (U) ltr to ADCOM/DP froin Maj Gen R. W. Jye, CofS, no 

subject, 30 May 79. 

55. (D) Msg, CINCAD to TAC et al, subj: ADCOM Reorganiza- 
tion Implementation Dat57 '3T1945Z May 79. 

57. (U) Msg, AFCS to CINCAD, subj: ADCOM Reorganisation Im- 
plementation Date, 042320Z Jun 79. 

-58. .(UB!sg,-USAF to ADCOM,- .subj: AiHIefenseiand'Surveil-' 4 "' 
lance/Warning Realignment, 1520452 Jun.,79. ; 

59. (U) Ltr to All DCS and Chiefs of 'Special Staff Elements, 
■ from Lt Col Larry K. Curl; 'Assistant Chief of Staff,'- ADC, ' 
subj: ADCOM Reorganization Delay, 18 Jun 79. . 

(II) Briefing, "Results of ADCOM Reorganization Conference, 
25-27 Jul 79," presented by Col T. W. Jensen, OCS/Plans ■'- 
Programs, and Requirements, HQ ADCOM, at CMC's morning 
staff meeting, 1 Aug 79. 

(U) Msg, ADCOM to TAC et ai; subj; Reorganization P-Plan 
Concurrence, 312030Z Aug 75. 

(U) Msg, SAC to ADCOM, subj: Aerospace Defense Reorganiza 
tion P-Plan 79-3, Vol I, DTD 1 Sep 79, O41SO0Z Sep 79. 

(Ul Msg, TAC to ADCOM, subj: Aerospace Defense Reorganiza 
tion P-Plan 79-3, vol I, 1 Sep 79, 1012472 Sep 79. 

{!)) Msg, ADCOM to USAF, subj: Programming Plan 79-3 
(ADCOM Reorganization) Monthly Report for October 1979, 
0915452 Nov 79, 

(U) Msg, USAF to CINCAD et al, subj : Impleientation 
Date for the ADCOM Reorganization, 3019002 Aug 79. 

(U) ltr to All DCS and Special Stiff Elements from 
■,.Ma] Cm. KU'liaiHiE. Cooper,. Jr.,.-ADCOM<CS, .subj;. 'Esiab-" 
"''iMmen't' WHO/SAC ^^ 

(OICS), 1 Nov 79 with 1 atch.' 

(U) Msg, CINCAD to AIG 7225/CC et ai.subj: Farewell 
Message from CINCAD, 261S002 Sep~757. ' 

(U) Msg, ADC0M/DO to 20AD et al, subj : Message of Ap- 
preciation, 281715Z Sep 79, 

. (U) Msg, CINCAD to 2CS/CC et al, subj: ADCOM'Reassign- 
Bent Action, 2819252 Sep 777 ' ■■- "' 

. (FOUO) ADCOM P-Plan 79-1, "Aerospace Defense Reorgani- 
zation," 1 Sep 79. 

. (0) Transfer Agreement Between Aerospace Defense Com- 
mand and Strategic Air Command for Peterson AFB, CO, 
no date. 

. (U) Msg, CINCSAC to CINCAD, subj; ADCOM Units Transfer 
. Dates, UlS30Z.Oct 79,- ..'.•; ... 

■ " (ft Msg, CINCAD to 'ClicSAcT subj : ADCOlflnW Trans f er ■ 
Dates,. 162210Z. Oct .79.' '.,...- _->-' - .". '..',' 

.■ -{Sj Staff Summary'- Sheet, to A/DO et 'al 'from Col .WHiam" 
S. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM,- subj:' Re- 
tention of Advocacy Role by CINCAD after Reorganization 
[HQ USAF Interface) (U), with handwritten comments by 
Gen Hill at bottom of first page, 27 Feb 79. 

. (Si ltr to Gen lew Allen, 'CSAF, frore.Ger. J. E. Bill. 
CINCNORAD, no subject, 26 Mar 79. 

. (0) ltr to -Gen lew Allen,- CSAF, from Gen R- H.: Ellis, •■ 
CINCSAC, no subject, 9 Apr 79.' 

. (U) Msg, CINCAD to USAF, 'subj: SAC C2 Master Plan, ' 
2323032 Apr 79. 

. (U) Msg, USAF to TAC, subj: ADCOM Reorganization - 
Organizational Responsibilities, 092223Z Jul 79. 

79. (U) Memo to ADTAC/CC from Office of the Deputy Chief of 
Staff, Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: Advocacy, no date, 
with 1 atch (Briefing, ADCOM Reorganization Conference, 

2S Jul 79, presented by Lt Col Hensman, AF/XOXXC), 

80. (S>. #sj, .CINCAD -to .IISAF/PA, subj';'. Air Defen5e"'-RebTgafit'- , '7" 
'''"' ' zatibn (B),,07i630Z. Feb 79.- 

81. ((J) Hsg, USAF/MPM to ADCOM/XP, subj ; ADCOM Reorgani- 
zation - Organizational Responsibilities, 132030Z Jul 79, 

82. (D) Itr to CS et al from Maj Gen Warren C. Moore, Vice 
Commander in Cn7eT7 ADCOM, subj: Command Council Meet- 
ing, 19 Jul 79 with 1 atch. 

83., (U).Msg, CINCAD/CC to CSAF/CV, subj: ADCOM Reorganiza-" 
"' 'ticn, Implementation Actions, 111727Z Sep 79. 

84. . (U) Ltr to ADCOK/XP et al from Col Mary L. Fake, AFMPC 

. Project Officer, subj? ADCOM Reorganization - Military 
Personnel Distribution, no date. 

85. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to XP from Col Ted K. Jensen, 
Director, Plans, Programs, and Requirements, DCS/Plans, 
subj: Reorganization Activities, 13 Apr 79. 

86. (U) Ltr to ADCOM/XPX froa ADCOM/DEPR, subj : Study of 
i«»***Reorgaiiization*Pro])osals , >for MORAD/ADC "at Peterson"*£FB',"**' 

CO, 19 Apr 79, with 1 atch. 

87. (H) Itr to Gen Leu Allen,' CSAF from Gen James E. Hill," 
CIKNORAD, no subject, 9 May 79. 

88. (D) Ltr to IISAF/LEE from Maj Gen Robert K. Fye, CofS, 
ADCOM,' subj: FY 1381 Military Construction Program (Our 
Ltr, 12 Dec 78), 27 Apr 79. 

89. .(U) Memo for the CMC from Maj Gen Warren C, Moore, Vice 
Commander in Chief, ADCOM, subj: Telecon with Lt Gen 
Marion Boswell, Asst Vice Chief of Staff,. Friday,. 1700, ■ 

■ -'■ 25 May 79; 29 May 79. 

90/ -(U) Background Paper, "Facility Survey for (Reorganiza- 
tion) Staff Relocation, 19 Jun 79. 

91. (U) Memo for The Commander in Chief from Maj Gen Warren 
C. Moore, Vice Commander in Chief, ADCOM, no subject, 
12 Jul 79. 

92. (U) Ltr to XP froa Maj Gen Warren C. Moore, Vice Coi- 
mander in Chief, ADCOM, subj: DRAD/ADCOM Move to Peter- 
son AFB, 20 Jul 79. _ , 

93 tBr'tt'to'tep/M'tra'Co'l George A 'Bohlen/DCS' ' 
Engineering. 5 Services, ADCOM, subj; Programming for 
NORAD/ADC Headquarters Relocation to Peterson AFB, 
15 Oct 79, Kith .latch. , 

94. (0) Staff Sumaary Sheet to" CC from Brig Gen Williaa E. 
Lindeaan, BCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: Realign- 
ment Facilities Requirements , 12 Oct 79, with 1 atch. 

95. , (U) Ltr to ■■Gar Janes E..HU1, Commander in¥ch'ie£, NORAD/.r r 
ADCOM./.fron Gen James- A.' Hill, Vice Chief, of'Staff.'USAF,' 
no subject, ,13 Nov 79, . ,•'--■ 

.-'-"«/■ -' - .. '"■■ 

96. (S) Ltr to/Gen Lew Allen, CofS USAF, from 'Gen James E. • 
Kill.iCINCNORAB, no subject, 5 Feb 79. 

97. (S) Ltr to Gen lew Allen, CofS USAF, from Gen James E. 
' Hill, CINCNORAD, no subject, 27 Apr 79. 

98. (S) Ltr to Gen Richard L. Lawson, Director ofPlans and 
\ Programs;--.J-5,'JCVfroa Gen James E. Hill, CINCAD, 

■ • W'<> s si!bjert*'27»Apr"79;~*!'' •"•^"'•" m ^ i - f -^" ! "- ■» " ««7» 

99. (S) .Background'' Paper, on Space •Mission-Organization'Plan- 
ning Study' (SMOPS), 14 Jan 80.. . ■. . . 

100. (U) Ltr to Gen Lew Allen, CofS USAF, froa Gen James E. 
Hill, CINC/D, no subject, 21 Dec 79. 

101. (U) Ltr to Honorable Hans M. Mart, Secretary of the Air 
Force, froa Gen James E. Hill, CINCAD, no subject, 
26'Dec 79. '.....■ 

102. (S) Ms g, NDHQ" Ottawa to CDLS Washington, subj: North 
'"American Ai''r:Defe'nse*'(D),"10'2001Z May '!.:■' 

103. (D) Ltr to Chairman, JCS from Gen James E. Hill, CINCAD, 
subj: Modernization of North American Air Defense Sys- 
teos in Canada and Alaska (Your Memo, CM-1940-78, 24 May 
78), 14 Jun 78. 

105. (C) Msg, JCS/J-S to CINCKORAD/XP, subj: Terms of Refer- 
ence, Joint U.S. Canadian Air Defense Study (U), 
292359Z Nov 78. 

106. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to DO et al from Col. H. S. 

■ , .Tetlock. (<£)<> ■••test, DCS/ Plans:»nl Programsv'NORAD,' subj-:-'- 
Joint U.S. -Canadian Air Defense Study (JUSCADS) Prelim- 
inary Results Briefing (U), 9 Apr 79, with 1 atch. 

107. (C) Staff Summary Sheet to XP etal.from Col louis L. 
Churchill, Special Assistant, KS/Tlans '6 Programs, 
NORAD, subj: Joint U.S. Canada Air Defense Study 
(JUSCADS) Meeting, Ottawa, Canada, 11-12 Apr 79 - Trip 
Report (U), 18 Apr 79, with 2 atch. 

108. (C) Staff Summary Sheet to DO et al from Col William R. s 
Kenty, Assistant DCS/Plans anOrograns , ADCOM, subj: 
Joint U.S. -Canadian Air Defense Study (JUSCADS) (U), 

IS May 79, with 1 atch. 

109. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to DO et al from Brig Gen 
William E. Lindeaan, DCS/Plans anifPrograms , ADCOM, 
subj: Report of Joint JUSCADS Working Group Meeting (U), 
4 Jun 79, with 1 atch. 

110. (S) Msg, CINCNORAD to OSD/ISA et al, subj : JUSCADS 
Tentative Conclusions BriefihgTUTT 0621301 Jun 79. 

111. (S) Talking Paper on Joint U. S. Canada Air. Defense 
• Study" (JUSCADS)' (U),- 17 Oct 79." "'■'..'' 

112. ' (S) Staff Summary Sheet to DO et al'from Col William E. 

Kenty, Assistant DCS/Plans andTrograms, ADCO, subj: 
JUSCADS Joint Working Group Memorandum to Mr. Aldridge, 
Study Director (U), 4 Sep 79, with 1 atch. -= 

113. (S) Msg, NORAD/J-5 to OSD/ISA et'al, subj; NORAD Com- 

■ merits on JUSCADS Final Draft, Sep~79 (D), 021500Z Oct 79. 

114. (S) Msg, tfORAD/J-5 to'OASD/ISA et al, subj: NORAD Com- 
ments on JUSCADS Final Draft, Sep 7S (U), 0520307. Oct 79. 

115. (S) Ltr to Mr. James V. Siena, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
(European and NATO Affairs), OSD, from Gen James E. Hill, 
CINCAD, no subject, 4 Oct 79, 

116. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to DO et al from Maj Gen C. A. 
LaFrance (CF), DCS/Plans and Programs, subj: Joint US/ 
Canada Air Defense Study -(JUSCADS) (U), 17 Oct 79. 

(S) Msg, SecState to AMEMBASSY Ottawa, subj : Joint 
U.S. /Canada Air Defense Study (JUSCADS) (U), 
181706Z Oct 79. 

119. (S) Msg-, CINCNORAD/CC to OASD/ISA et si, subj: JUSCADS 
Final Results Briefing (U), 14Z310TNOV 79, 

120. ' prj.Hsg; NORAD/J-5 to JCS/J-5, subj; NORAD Comments on 

JUSCADS Final Report, 282250Z Nov 79. 

121. (U) Ltr,.to Mr. Jaies V. Siena, Deputy Assistant Secre- 
i. tary,- (European!, and NATO Affairs),. from.Gen, James E. 

■ ■■'-■' Hill',' CINCAD.-.'rio subject, "2rd)ec 79.:-' 

122. (C) Msg; SECDEF/USDP to CINCNORAD, subj: JUSCADS Final 
•;:' lesultSjBriefing (U), 262315Z Dec 79. 

123. (S) Ltr to Gen David C.Jones, Chairman, JCS, from Gen 
James E. Hill, CINCNORAD, no subject, 28 Nov 79, with 
1 atch. 

124. (S) Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense from Vice 

. Aduiral.Thor Hanson, Director JS, subj:. .Policy. Recom- 
' ' \ mendations. for North' American^r^Mejise ,Jl!),,,10;, ,. . 

125. (S) Ltr to USAF/XO from Lieutenant General James V. 
Hartinger, CINCNORAD, subj:' North American Air Defense 
(HQ USAF/CV Memo, 10 Jan 1980) (U), 18 Jan 80, with 1 
atch. ■ , 

126, (S) Interest Paper on" Policy Recommendations for North 
American Air Defense Developed in Response to the Joint 
Unite.d. States/Canada Air Defense Study. (JUSCADS) (U), 

. ' lS.Jan 80. ■ ■ . •• 

12.7. ,,(U),itr to All CCSs. and.Chiefs of .Special, Staff Elements, 
.."''from Capt J. B. -B. Minnigerode (USN),' Assistant DCS/ 
Intelligence/J-2, subj: Internal Reorganization of 
NORAD-ADCOM/IN, 5 Dec '79, with 1 atch. 

128. (U) Msg, USAF/MPMO to ALMAJCOM-SOA, subj: Retitle of 
Information Function, 2721302 Aug 79. 

129. (U) HQ NORAD/ADCOM Staff Bulletin No. 39, 4 Oct 79. 

subj .- ADCOH/DB Reorgan- 

131," '(U)'- : BooH'etrTraisfer'df*Kuriction anff "ftedu'ct i'b» ^ in - " 

Force Prepared by Aerospace 'Defense Command Directorate 
of Civilian Personnel, no date. 

132. (0) Booklet, Procedures for Functional Transfer of 
Civilian Employees, ABCOM,' Mar 79, 

133. (U) Ltr to All DCS and Chiefs of Special Staff Elements, 
from Maj Jerry C, Hix, Chief, Information Division, 
Command Directorate of Information,- subj rl.ADCOM Re- y- 
organization: Langley'AFB VA Briefings, 11 Sep 79, 

134. (U) Ltr to All DCS and Special Staff Elements Through 
Directorates, from Mr. C. L.. Shinn, Director of Civilian 
Personnel, ADCOM, subj: Counseling on RIP and Transfer 

' of Function, 31 Oct 79. 

135. (U) Msg, ADCOM/XPMQ to Det 4/CC, sub) : Manpower File 
Freeze, 2415302 Aug 79. 

136. ■ (D) ltr from Mr. Arthur J. Peterson, Civilian Personnel 

,', „^„_0ff icer,,ADCOM/l)PCS„subj : i J>reliminary..,pff er„oij£ans.- „, 
""fer of Function, 4 Sep 79," _ ■ 

137. (U) Msg, ADCOM/DPC to OSAF/MPK, subj: ADCOM Realign- 
ment, 071'800'Z Jun 79. 

138. (U) ltr from Evelyn Kidwell, Civilian Personnel Officer, 
46th "Aerospace Defense King (SAC), subj: Notice of 
Reduction in Force - Transfer of Function, 1 Nov 79. '.^ 

139. .(0) Ltr from Evelyn Kidwell, Civilian personnel Officer, 

46th Aerospace Defense Wing (SAC), subj: Notice of 
Reduction in Force ■ Transfer of Function, 1 Nov 79, 
with 4 atch. 

140. (U) Briefing to CINCAD by ADCOM DCS/Personnel, no date. 

141. (U) Ltr to All DCS and Chiefs of Special Staff Elements 
from Maj Gen Iferren C. Moore, Vice Commander in Chief, 
ADCOM, subj: Civilian Personnel Hiring Freeie ■ Peter- 
son AFB Complex, 10 Apr 79. 

143. (U) Staff. Summary Sheet to CS et al from Col William It.. 
■ Kenty, Assistant DCS/Plans 'andTroglais, 'ADCuM, ''subj; ; 

Officer Grade Reduction, 20 Har 79', with 1 atch.' 

144. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to CC from Brig Gen William E. 
Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj : ADCOM 
Officer Grade Reduction, 9 Feb 79, with 1 atch. 

145. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to CC from Brig Gen William E. 
Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: ADCOM 
Officer Grade Reduction, 8 Har 79. 

■146. (D)' Staff Summary Sheet to CS from Brig Gen William E. 
' Lindeman, BCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: ADCOM 
Officer Reduction, 4 Apr 79, with 1 atch. 

147. (II) Ltr to Lieutenant General Andrew P. losue, Deputy 
CofS, Manpower and Personnel, from Gen James E. Hill, 
CINCAD, no subject, 5 Apr 79, with 2 atch. 

148. (U) Ltr to CINCNORAD/ADCOM (Gen J. E. Hill) from Lieu- 
tenant General S..L. Davis, Deputy CofS, Manpower and 

■ ^Perspnnel^subj:^eponing^Procedures^for the. ^1980,^, 
"^ '■' Generarb'fficer Manning and Position Review Boardj 
- '13 Feb 79. - ■ "... ■ •■■■'•'■ '•'■■' " 

149. (D) Ltr to' 'Gen James E. Hill, CINCNORAD/ADCOM from 
Lieutenant General B. L. Davis, Deputy CofS, Manpower 
and Personnel, no subject, 15 Mar 79, with 1 atch. 

150. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to XP from Col Joedan J. 
Saunders, Director of Manpower and Organization, DCS/ 
Plans and Programs, subj: General Officer Reduction, 

■9'May 79. 

151. .(U) Ltr 'to ADCOM/B,from Col William R. Kenty,' Assistant 

DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: General Officer 
Reduction, 11 May 79. 

152. (S) Ltr to 20NR/CC from Maj Gen Robert ». Fye, CofS, 
subj: Joint Table of Distribution (0) (Your Ltr, 

12 May 79), 2 Apr 79. 

Military Uses of Space: 1946-1991 

Published by: 

Chadwyck-Healey inc., 1101 King Slreet, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 

Military Uses of Space: 1 946- 1 99 1 provides a detailed record of the strategic importance of the U.S. 
military space program (ram the conceptualization of the uses of space to the present realization of 
advanced capabilities. Materials were identified, obtained, assembled, and indexed by the National 
Security Archive, a nonprofit, Washington, D.C. based research institute and library. The microfiche 
collection is accompanied by Military Uses of Space: 1946*1 991 Guide and index. 

Arrangement of Information on the Microfiche: 

The documents are arranged in chronological order. A unique identification number is assigned to 

each document. Each new document begins a new fine on the microfiche. 

Document Quality: 

The quality of the original materia! varies. lnlhecaseofeachdocument,Chadwyck^ealeylnc.has 

filmed the best ccpy made available by the National Security Archive. 

Microfiche Numbering: 

The unique identification numbers assigned to the documents are listed in the top right hand comer 

of the microfiche title strip. 

Technical Data: 

Producing Laboratory: ChadwyckHeatey Inc. 

Date of Publication of Microfiche Edition: 1991 

Format: 49 frame, 105mm x 14&nm silver bslide microfiche, 24x nominal reduction 

of the arrangement of pages on microfiche may be made without the written permission of 
Chadwyck-Healey inc. for interna! and reference use only and not for resale. 

Distribution Outside the USA: 
Chadwyck-Healey Ltd., Cambridge PI 

Document Quality: 

Through ihe use of the Freedom of information Act and an extensive network of government, media, 
and academic contacts, the National Security Archive l%s developed this varied colfeclbn of primary 
materials. Just as the type of materials included varies, so does (he quality of each document. 

The National Security Archive has made every effort to provide Chadwyck-Healey inc. with the best 
quality, most complete copy available of each document. Chadwyck-Healey Inc. has faithfully 
reproduced on microfiche exactly what was provided by ihe Natbnal Security Archive. 

Many of the documentsinduded in this publication were previously classified by the U.S. Government 
and even when dedassified, sections or pages may be obliterated by the government due to the 
potentially sensitive information contained in them. 

The variety of material reproduced in this publication includes photocopies or poor carbon copies of 
cables, memoranda, intelligence reports, briefing papers, Congressional reports, official fetters, and 
press reports. This variety can present dSficutttesof imageand conlrast which the mostcareful filming 

and processing cannot entirely overcome. 

This is a rich and varied source of primary documents made available for research and all microfiche 
have been produced to the highest quality and conform to AIIM, BS1 and ANSI standards. 

(U) Ltr to J-S froi Ma] Gen Robert It. Fye, CofS, NORAD, 
subj; U.S. Army Manpower Resources in NORAD, 11 Apr 79. 

(U) Ltr from Maj Gen Robert II. Fye, CofS, NORAD, subj: 
Coordination of Out, of Cycle Change to the NORAD Joint.. ... 
Manpower Prograi (JHP) , ' lT3un 79. ' ■'."•' 

(U) Ltr to JCS/J-5 from Col Joedan J. Saunders, Director 
of Manpower and Organisation, DCS/Plans and Programs, 
subj : 1 Oct 79 Out of Cycle Change to the NORAD/ADCOM 
Joint' Manning Program (JMPJ, W Aug '79, 'with 1 atch. 

(S) Staff Summary Sheet to NORAD COC/CC/DP from Maj Gen 
Bruce K. Brown, DCS/Operations, subj: Increased Man- 
power, Authorizations for Det 1,'SORAD COC, Tinker AFB, ■-? 
OK (U), 2 May 79, with 1 atch.:. v ; , ./, 

(S) Ltr to SORAD/DO from Maj Gen R. R. -.Barber, DCS/Plans 
and Programs, NORAD, subj: Increased Manpower Authori- 
zations for Det ■ 1, NORAD COC, Tinker AFB, OK (Your Ltr, 
3 May 79) (U), with 1 atch. 

(II) Ltr to ADCOM/XPM from It Col Harry H, Hurst, Deputy 
Chief, Programs Division, Directorate of Manpower and 
Organization, subj: Increased Manpower Requirements • 
for E-3A NORAS Mission Crews (Your- ltr,! 14' May 79), 

,. 3Q.JulJ5,v.with 1 atch/.-.-rfsStajg***. *-*-i*.' .*- ■ - « J ** ; -•■ » 

(UJ- Memorandum- for. Record; -Col Joedan J;* Saunders;- ' 
Director/Manpower and Organization, DCS/Plans snd.Pro-'.-. 
grams, subj: Redistribution of SPADOC Resources, 11 Jul 

160. (U) Ltr to Air Divisions from ADCOM DO, subj: Weapons 4 _ 
Controller Manning and Experience Levels, 16 Jan' 79. ■" 

161. ,(U) Briefing, Monthly Management Review by the Comptrol- 

ler - 26 October 1979, Briefer"- Colonel Louis R. 
Ravetti, 26 Oct 79, 'with 1'atch. 

162. (S) Staff Summary. Sheet tff CS from Col Frank R. Wisneski, 
Command Inspector General, "subj: ' Summary' : of USAF/IG 
Inspection Report USAF Support to NORAD (U), 27 Feb 79, 
with 1 atch. .... 

163. (S) Ltr to AF/A? et al, from Maj Gen Len C. Russell, 
Deputy Inspector General for Inspection and Safety, 
subj: Interim Action Reports, Special Inspection of 
USAF Support to NORAD, PN 80-2056 (0), 18 Jan 80, with 
2 atchs. 

(S) Briefing, Outbrief of IG Inspection given to 
CINCNORAD and Staff by Mr. Bob Nolan fron the Air 
Force Inspection and Safety Center at Nolan, 15 Bee 

165. (S) Staff, Summary Sheet to IG et al,' froo Maj Gen 
Bruce K. Brown, DCS/Operations, suFj: CINC Visit with 
USAF K (0), 2 Jan 80, Kith 1 atch. 

166. (S) Memo to Maj Gen Bruce K. Brown froo Maj Killias P. 
Knudsen, Executive to the CINC, subj: Topic N/DOZ SSS 
23 Nov 79, 26 Nov 79, Memo to Maj Gen Bruce K. Brora 
from Maj William P. tadsen, Executive to the CINC, 

sane subj, 26 Nov 79, Staff Summary Sheet to H/CS et ■ ; 
al, from Maj Gen Bruce K, Brown, DCS/Operations, sub~j: 
Operations Review Board Report, 23 Nov 79, 1 atch, 
Operating Review Board Report (S) , 

167. (S) Defense Intelligence Agency DACOM Transmittal Sheet 
to Capt. Budura, ADCOM, from Maj Boyd, OJCS J-3 EA Div, 
subj: NEACP 535-79, 19 Kov 79, 

168. (0) Memo froo Washington, subj: Alert Alarm, 9 Nov 75. 
Also a collection of newspaper clippings regarding the 
9 Nov Incident. 

' 169" (S) "SecState lfalhDFtTiiJHNT/BSMissi'on SnTet. aT,**"" 
subj: Soviets and the False Missile Alert, "2800222. 

Nov 79; '• ; 

170. (II) Memo for the Record, to ATSD/LA et al, froa Maj Pat 
Sweeney, OATSD (Legislative Affairs) suHJ: Continuation 
of Congressional Briefings in Response to NORAD Alert 
Inquiries, 5 Dec 79. 

171. (S) Msg, J-3 to ASD/C3I Wash DC et al, subj; Meeting 
Between Members of NORAD Staff aH Sen Hart, ' 20211SZ 
Dec 79. 

172. . (U) Ltr to ADC0M/D02, from Col Philip A. Deering, Dep- 

uty Comjnander for Data Automation, subj: Operational 
Review Board Status, 29 Nov 79, 1 atch.' 

173. (S) Msg, J-3 to JCS/C3S Bash DC, subj: NORAD ORB Up- 
date (H), 291708Z Nov 79. 

174. (S) Msg, DO to JCS/J3/C3S/WMCS Eval Hash DC et al, 
subj: False Indications at 091S512 Nov 79, 30TJ5W 
Nov 79. 

175. (S) Msg, N0RAD/J6 to HQ USAF/XOK Wash DC et al, subj : 
Missile Warning Scenario Control, 050215Z Dec 79. 

176. (S) Background Paper, "9 Nov 1979 False Indications", 
:• by Maj Sapp, NORAD/DOPC,' 26 Dec 79,~ 

177. (S) Staff Sumary Sheet to N/DO from Lt Col Kenneth 
E. Lager, Confignration/Control, subj: Action Iteu 

" "( (D), 04. Jan 80, 1 atch. 

178. (S) Msg, NORAD/J-3 to JCS/J-3/C3S Wash DC, subj: 
Suspension of 427M Developoent Testing (Ul, 251'1SZ 
Dec .79. 

179. (C) Mem to Co! Brandt froa Col Jaaes K. iowe, Dir- 
ector,' Air Defense Operations, subj: Operations Review 
Board (PHASE III Report), 14 Nov 79. 

180. (S) Meno to Col Brandt fron Col Killiaa H. Riley, Dir- 
ector of Cosaand § Control Systems, subj: Operations 
Review Board (Phase III Report), 16 Nov 79. 

181. (S) Msg, ADCOM/DOO to 20NH/DO Ft Lee AFS VA et al, 
subj: Unit Response to (SAWS) Warning Alert,~Il"2T00Z 
Sov 79. „ 

-aS2r fsTM^0I!ffl7m"b~JCs7j3 "ash, subj Missile Attlct '"' 
• Sarning.(S),-290001Z Nov 79. -; 

183. (S) Msg; K0RAD/D0O to AIG et al, subj: Missile Attack' 
Warning (S), 3023072' Nov 797 

184. (S) Msg, SORAD/DO to AIG et al, subj: HAS Aober Warn- 
ing Test.(U), 071728Z Dec 79. 

X85._ (S) Msg, NORAD/DO to AIG/M et al, subj: Missile Attack 
Warning/Interiia Emergency Change I to N/A Reg 53-19, 
Vol III, 15 May 79 (U); 1718002 Jan 80. 

186. (0) Msg, N0RAD/J6 to JCS/C3S Wash DC et al, subj: Re- 
view of NORAD Alert System (HAS) CiTcSTts, 2S23002 

187. (FOUO) Interest Paper "Proposed Relocation of the Coin- 
Band Section to the Cheyenne Mountain Complex" by Col 
Williai R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, 8 Jan 80 

188. (U) Ur to Gen Jones from Gen Janes E. Hill, Commander 
in Chief, no subject, 27 Dec 79. 

189. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/XP from Lt Col Peter M. 
Fleming, Chief, . Programs 8, Runts Oiv, subj: Talking 
Papers for 1979 CIHCs' Conference (U), 13 Nov 79, 

1 atch. 

190. (S) Msg, CINCAD/CC to JCS/CJCS Hash DC et al, subj: 
'FY 1981 CJCS ■Military Posture StatenentlU) , 1820552 

Sep 79. 

191. (S) Interest Paper "BMBWS Modernization (U)" by Col 
Robert ' n M. Kronebusch, Director, Missile and.Space De---:^ 
tense, 11 Jan 80. ■ • '"■■~' i 

192. (0) Msg, AFSC/SDE Andrews AFB MD to OTRHIB/HQ ADCOM/"- 
XPD, subj: BMEKS Modernization, 152200Z Feb 79. 

193. (S) Msg, AFSC/CC Andrews AFB MD to CSAF/CC Sash DC, et 
al, sub) : Enhanced Perineter Acquisition Radar Charac- 
terization, 161S16Z Mar 79. 

194. (S) Msg, SSO/CC ADCOM to AFSSO/CC IKAF et al, subj: 
EPARCS (U), 282220 Mar 79. 

19Sr»CSnt'aff-SDSary Shtfet to A/DE^t' , •aT•froS°K^Gei'Rt*^* , 
R. Barber, DCS/Plans and Prograes, 80RAD, subj;-.BMESS . 
Modernization (U), 16 Feb 79, 1 atch. 

196. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/AC et al from Brig Gen 
Killian E. Lindeaan, DCS/Plans and" Prograus, ADCOM, 
subj: BMEWS IBM 7090 Replacement, 18 Hay 79. 

197. (S) Talking Paper "BMEWS Modernization" by Brig Gen 
William E. tindeman, DCS/Plans and Prograus, ADCOM, 
10 Jan 79. . 

198. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/XP et al from Col Janes 
P. Foster, Jr, Dep Dir Missile an3 Space Def, subj: 
BMEKS Replacement Study, 25 Apr 79, 1 atch, 

199. (S) Ltr to Dr. Gerald P. Dinneen from Gen James E. Hill, 
Commander in Chief, no subject, 31 Jul 79, I atch. 

200. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen 
William E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, 
subj; BME1VS Improvement Status (U), 8 Jan 79. 

201. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Col William 
R. Kenry, Asm DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, sub j : 
BMEWS Improveuent Status, 22 Jan 79. 

202. (U) Heio to XP frotf Col Robert M.' Kronebusch, Director, 
Missile and Space Defense, stibj: SMEWS IBM 7090 Re- 
placement, 6 Sep 79, 1 atch, 

203. (S) Msg, CINCNORAD/CC to CSAJ/CC Wash DC et al, subj: 
BMEWS Modernization (U), 151730Z Oct 79. 

204. (S) Staff Suanary Sheet to A/IS et al froa Brig Gen 
William E. Lindenan, DCS/Plans aSiT Kograas, ADCOM, 
subj: BMEKS Modernization, 25 Oct 79, 2 atch. 

205. {S) Hem to Assistant Secretary of Defense (C 3 I) froa 
Mr. Eugene H, Kopf, Principal Deputy Assistant Secre- 
tary Research, Development and Logistics, subj: BMEWS 
Upgrade (U)- Information Memorandum, 16 Oct 79. 

206. (D) Msg, AFSC/SDE/ACB Andrews AFB MD to ffillAHQA/RDSP/ 
■ Wash DC, subj: BMEKS Modernization Funding fU), 

0420042 Dec 79. 

207. (S) Background Paper "BMEWS Modernization (U)" by Brig 
\ 1 Gen r Killi2nJ.,Iindenaii, ,DCS/Plans andProgrsas, 13.j«t. 

Dec 13. ■ ■ 

209: (S) Msg,.ADCOM/D0F to REBKJCS/NMCC Wash DC, et al, 

subj: Status of Pave PAWS Missile Warning Data,Tl62310Z 
Jul 79. 

210. '..(D) ^ Staff. Summary: Sheet to A/DE et.aj. fron Col William 
R. Kenry, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: 
Otis Pave PAWS Power Problems, 8 Aug 79, 1 atch. 

211. (0) Msg, ADCOM/D0 to HQ DSAF/X0X/X0O/X0KS et al, subj: 
Otis Pave PAWS Power Problems -and Continued Operation 
of AN/FSS-7's at Ft Fisher AFS MC and Charleston AFS 
ME, 15194SZ Aug 79. 

212. (S) Interest Paper "6th Missile Warning SQDN (Otis 
AFB) Pave PAWS (U)" by Maj Gen C. A. LA France, DCS/ 
Plans and Prograis, N0RAD, 17 Oct 79. 

(SJ Hsg, ADCOM/DO to HQ USAF/XOO/PAX/ACB Hash DC et al, 
subj: Pave Pans Missile Warning Data (U), 071645Z Sep 

214. (U) Staff Suaoary Sheet to A/DO et al fron Col William 
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans anil Programs, ADCOM, subj: 
PAVE PAWS Power Probleis, 31 Aug 79, 1 atch. 

215. (S) Tailing Paper "PAVE PASS (0)" by Col William R. 
Xenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Prograns, ADCOM, 27 Sep 79. 

216. (0) Msg, ADCOM/DO to HQ USAF/XOO/PAX/ACB Wash DC et al, 
subj: Otis Pave Pans and AN/FSS-7 Sixty Day Dual Op- 
erations, >282145Z Sep-79.j_ 

217. (U) Msg,' ADCOM/DO to KQ DSAF/XOO/PAX/ACB Wash DC et al, 
subj: Teraination of Otis Pave Pans and AN/FSS-7 Sixty 
Day Dual' Operations, 0717102 Nov 79. 

218. (<IS) Talking Paper "OTIS PAVE PAWS" 15 Jan 80. 

219. (U) Staff Sussny Sheet to S/B02 et al, froa Lt Col 
Francis I. Nance, Director of Space ifMsl Wrng Opera- 
tions, subj : Impacts of AN/FSS-7 East Coast Extension, 
12 Jan 79, 2 atchs. 

'22'C ro"Msg;-HQ.DSAF/X00/PAX/ACBtOUWRNLB7Hq'K08AD et al , 
subj : Extension of AN/FSS-7 Operations at Charleston 
AFS, ME and Ft. Fisher AFS, NC, 201531Z Jun 79. 

ADCOM et al, subj: Continued Operation of AN/FSS-7 
Radars at Ft. Fisher AFS, NC, and Charleston AFS, ME, 
071330Z Sep 79. ' ■■-■■■ 

222. (0) Msg, HQ ADCOM/DO to HQ SAC/AC/SX Offutt AFB NE et 
al, subj: Continued East Coast FSS-7 Operation, 1622US2 
Nov 79. . 

223. (tl) Msg, HQ SAC/ACB to RUWRNLB/HQ ADCOM et al, subj: 
Continued East Coast FSS-7 Operations, 25I350Z Nov 79. 

224. (0) Msg, CINCAD/CS to CINCSAC/CS Offutt AFB NE et al, 
subj: East Coast AN/FSS-7 SLBM Detection and Warning 
Radar Continued Operation, 191420Z Nov 79. 

225. (li) Msg, CINCNORAD/CC to DET S/CC/14MWS Ft Fisher AFS 
NC et al, subj: Special Recognition, 212O0Z Dec 79. 

226. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al f™ Brig Gen 
William E, Lindeman, DCS/Plans an? Programs, ACCOM, 
subj: Position Paper on PARCS (H), 10 Jan 79, 1 atch. 

227. (S) Msg, ADCOH/XP to HQ USAF/RDQ Wash DC et al, subj: 
EPAHCS (0), 2621452 Dec 78. 

228. (S) Memo to AFSS0/C5AF/CC ft al from AFSSO/AFSC/CC, 
subj: Enhanced Perimeter Acquisition Radar Characteri- 
zation System (EPARCS) (U), 032330Z Jan 79. 

229. (S) Msg, AFSSO/CC to AFSSO/CC AFSC et al, subj: En- 
hanced Periaeter Acquisition Radar Characterization 
System (EPARCS) (Your Meg 032330Z Jan 79) (U) , J01300Z 
Mar 79. J 

230. (S) Msg, SSO ADCOM/CC to AFSSO USAF/CC et al, subj; 
EPARCS (11), 282220 Mar 79. "~ 

231. (S) Msg, HQ AFSC/SDE to RUEOFFA/ESD/OC Haascoa AFB HA 
et a2, subj : Enhanced Perimeter Acquisition Radar Char- 
acterization Systea (EPARCS), 1S1S16Z Mar 79. 

AFB MD et al, subj: EPARCS, 231600Z Mar 79. 

233. (S) Msg„CmCAD/aUo HQ.DSAF/RD Wash-DC et ale subj:— 
'EPARCS (D), 111645Z Apr 79. 

234. (S) Msg, HQ OSAF/RD to RUKRStB/HQ CIHCAD/CC et al,- 
subj: EPARCS (U), 261350Z Apr 79. 

235. (U) Msg, AFSC/CV to RUEAHQA/HQ USAF/RD Wash DC et. al, 
subj:, EPARCS. (HQ USAF/RD Z61350Z Apr 79). 07155SZ May, 

236. , ((]) Msg, HQ USAF/EDS to RHEOAWA/HQ AFSC/SD Andrews 

AFBJID et al, subj: PARCS Radar Modification, PHD R-Q 
8043(5), 011500Z Jun 79.- 

237. (S) Msg, HQ ADC0M/D0 to AFSC/SDO/SDS Andrews AFB MD 
et al, subj: Flight 8 Turnover (11), 1D232SZ Jul 79. 

238. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Cen 
William E. Lindeman. DCS/Plans ail Programs , ADC0M, 
subj: Defense Support Program (DSP) Improvements Sta- 
tus (U), 24 Apr 79. 

239. (S) Msg, CINCAB/CC to liSAF/XOO/RDS Wash DC et al, 
subj: DSP Operational Satellites (0), 080255Z Aug 79. 

240. (S) Itr to Dr. Gerald P. Dinneen from Gen Janes E. 
Hill, Commander in Chief, no subject, 31 Jul 79, 1 

241. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO from Brig Gen Killiam 
E. Lindeaan, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: 
Simplified Processing Station (SPS) Alternatives (II), 
12 Jan 79, 1 atch. 

242. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen 
WiUiei B. ..Lindeaan, DCS/Plans ana Programs, ADCOM, 
subj:. Simplified Piocessing Station (SPS) Overseas 
Site- (D), 20 Feb 79, latch. 

243. (S) Msg, ADC6.M/XP to HQ USAF/PAX Wash DC st al, subj: 
Simplified Processing Station (SPS) Overseas~S~iting 
(Your Msg 062000 Apr 79) (Notal OUE) (H), 0221502 May 

244. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen 
fc'illiam E. Lindeaan, DCS/Plans ail Programs, ADCOM, 
subj:. Simplified Processing Station (SPS) Overseas 

^•W-»Siting«(fl&H0.»Dec*79,«l--atch:~"'-~ "■" ■-" "--"""- -' 

245. (S) Msg, HQ HSAF/RDS/X0O to RUWLB/HQ ADCOM et al, 
subj: DSP Data Survivability Enhancements (0), 16T845Z 
Feb 79. 

246. (S) Gen James E. Hill from Charles W. Duncan, 
Jr, Deputy, Secretary of Defense, no subject, 27 Feb 79. 

247. (S) Ltr to Charles tf. Duncan, Jr from Gen James E. .' 
FH-11, Comaander in Chief, no subject, 20 Mar 79. 

248. (S) Msg, HQ ADC0M/XP to HQ AFTEC/TE Kirtland AFB NM 
et al, subj: Bequest for SPS IOT5E Extension (U), 
2T2» May 79. 

249. (S) Msg, AFTF.C/CC to RUWRNLB/HQ ADCOM/XP/DO et al, 
subj: SPS I0TSE Extension (U), 011636Z Jun 757 

250. (S) Msg, ADC0M/XP to AFTEC/TE Kirtland AFB NM et al, 
subj: Continued SPS Test Requireisents, 121500Z7un 

251. (S) Msg, AFTEC/CC to RUWNIB/ADCOM/XP/DO et al, subj : 
Termination of SPS IOTqE (U), 15Z030Z Jun"79, 

252. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Col Church- 
. . ill, spbj,: Program .ManagementoDi«cHve-(P>l%Change 

'"' ""' ' Request, "l9''Jun' 79. ". "'.■■■■ 

253. (S) Msg, CINCAD/CV to- HQ USAF/RDS Wash DC et al, subj: 
Program Management Directive (PMD) Change Request, 
221730Z Jim 79. ' --'• 

254. (S) Msg, HQ USAF/XOO/RBS to RUWTFBA/AFTEC/CC Kirtland 
AFB et al, subj: Siunlified Processing Stations (SPS), 
1218402 Jul 79. ' - .;. 

255. (S) Msg, SAMSO/SZJ to HQ AFSC/SDS Adrews AFB MD et al, 
subj: Continued Simplified Processing Support (UJ7 
011415? Aug 79. 

256. (S) Meao to ADCOM/XP from Col Robert M. Kronebusch, 
Director, Missile and Space Defense, no subject, 16 
Aug 79, 2 atchs. 

257. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Col William 
. R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and.Prograas, ADCOM, subj: \ 
"SPS Turnover' Status Review, 14 Sep J9. ',.^ ra ,' ^..^l," . 

258. (U) Msg, HQ SD/SZ to ADCOM/XPD, subj: Simplified Pro- 
• "erasing Station (SPS) Turnover, 312300Z Oct 79! 

"259.'. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen 
'William E, Lindeaan, DCS/PIsns and". Programs, ADCOM, 
subj: SPS Turnover Status (0), 21 Kov 79. 

260.' (S) Msg, CINCAD/CS to CINCSAC/CS/SX Offutt AFB HE et 
al, subj: Management Transfer Date for OIAE HQ ADCOM 
• fornhuslcer AAP NE (U), 162215Z Nov .79. - - - ■ 

26L (U) Ltr to HQ NORAD/.PAM from Lt Col. Terence. J.. O'Rourke, 
■ ' Chief,' Tec Data 8 Systems Div, subj: Information on 1979 
Space Activities, 4 Jan 80. ■ 

262. (D) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et »1 from 'Brig Gen 
William E. Lindeaan, DCS/Plans an? Programs, ADCOM, 
subj: MOTIF Transition Program, 18 Sep 79. 

263. (Sj Background Paper, "AM/CPS-10 Relocation Project (0), 
25 Jul 79. 

264. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et at from Col William 
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs', ADCOM, subj: 
Status Report on PACBAR Eastern and Western Sites, 11 . 
Apr 79. •■'•■■•'• 

265. (S) Interest Paper, "The ALTAIR Radar" 1 Jun 79. 

266. (U) Background Paper, "Ground-Based Electro-Optical 
Deep Space Surveillance '(GEODSS) System" 17 Apr 79. 

267. (U) Background Paper, "Ground-Base Electro-Optical 
Deep Space Surveillance (GEODSS) System" 1 Jun 79. 

268. (C) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Col William 
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: 
Eastern Atlantic GEODSS Site, 10 Apr 79, 1 atch. 

269. (U) Msg, HQ USAF to HQ AFSC et al, subj: GEODSS Site 
Survey Status, 2019307, Mar 757 

270. (U) Msg, ADCOM to ESD L G Hanscom AFB MA et al, subj: 
GEODSS Car Submission, 1520002 Jun 79. 

271. (C) Msg, SecState to Amembassy Madrid et al, subj: 
Ground-Based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance,. 

— -''. ■ System (GEODSS), UlSWKn 80.' • - - 

272. (U) A collection of newspaper clippings regarding 
Skylab. ' ' •' 

273. (U) Msg, CISC NORAD to OSAF BASH DC et al, subj: NORAD 
Decay Predictions for Skylab, 02233$rApr 79. 

274. (U) Msg, NORAD COC to NASA et aL subj: Skylab' NORAD 
Satellite Situation Report TNSSR) Nr.' 1, 05IS53ZAPR79. 

275. (U) Msg, NORAD: to -CINCP1MT Noxfolk VA'efal, ; 'subj: 
.Skylab NORAD Satellite Situation- Report~[NS5R) ■, 151750Z. 
May 79. 

276. (II) Msg, NOCC NASA GSFC Gr'eenbelt MD to NASA HQS Wash 
DC et al , subj: Skylab Public Release Information No. 
19, 121358Z Jul 79. 

277. (S) Talking Paper, "10th AERODS-ADCOM Space Launch 
Advocacy Focal Point (U) 26 Apr 78. 

278. (S-NOFORN) Staff Summary Sheet to N/DO from Col John 
». Vocum, Acting Asst DCS for Space Operations, subj: 
NORAD Space Defense Relationships, 21 SEP 78. 

(U) Ltr to Gen James E. Hill from Lt Gen Richard C. 
Henry, no sub], 16 Jan 79, 

(U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/XP from Maj Gen Bruce K. 
Brown, DCS/Operations, stibjr Reply t'o ' SAMSO/CC Ltr, 16 
Jan 79, 6 Feb 79. 

(U) Ltr to Lt Gen Richard C. Henry from Gen Jams E. 
Hill, no subj, 12 Mar 79. 

(U) Msg, ADCOM to SAMSO LA AFS CA et al, subj: ADCOM 
SSP/DMSP Launch Support, 261S55Z Apr 71 

(U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/XPX et a)_ drafter Maj 
Krasinski, subj: Revised Program Management Directive 
for Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, 2 May 79. 

(U) Msg, ADCOM to HQ USAF et'al, subj: Program Manage- 
ment Directive for Defense Meteorological Satellite 
Program, 0320042 Hay 79. 

(li) Interest Paper, "Issues Relating to the USAF Space 
Support Program, Defense Meteorological Satellite Pro- 
gram and the Tenth Aerospace Defense Squadron (10 
AERODS)", 6 Jul 79. 

(D) Interest Paper7 "Switch of DMSP from THOR to ATLAS 
E/F Launch Vehicle", IS Aug 79. 

(U) Staff Summary Sheet .to A/ AC et ai from Brig Gen 
William E. lindeaan, DCS/Plans aiJ Programs, ADCOM, 
subj: Switch of Defense Meteorological Satellite Pro- 
gram (DMSP) from THOR to ATLAS, 15 Aug 79. 

(S) Msg, ADCOM to HQ USAF et. al, subj: Military Space 
launch Capability (U), 172HOZ Aug 79. 

(U) Ltr to Col John F. Fowler from Gen James E. Hill, 
no subj, 25 Oct 79. 

(U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et a| from Brig Con 
William E. Lindeaan, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, 
subj: Briefing-Transition of DMSP Satellites from Thor 
to Atlas Boosters, 27 Nov 79. 

(U) Ltr to Gen Alton D. Slay from Gen James E. Hill, 
no subj, 5 Dec 79. 

(S) Msg, ADCOM to AFSC Andrews AFB MD et al, subj: 
ADCOM Addendum to USAF Site Survey 78-Z1 7JJ), 6 Feb 79. 

(C) Staff Summary Sheet to A/CS et al from Col Louis 
I. Churchill, Acting- DCS/Plans''and"''Prbgrams, AtlCOM, 
subj: STC II/SOC/GPS NCC Siting Criteria, 19 Jun 79, 1 

(C) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen 
Willia.i E. Itiideian, DCS/Plans aH3 Programs, ADCOM, 
subj: SAMSO Briefing on Consolidated Space Operations 
Center, '. Jul 79, 1 atch. 

(S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO,et al from Brig Gen 
William E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans ancT Programs, ADCOM, 
subj: Consolidated Space Operations Center (CSOC) (U), 
13 Jul 79. 

(C) Msg, CINCAD to AFSC Andrews AFB MD et al, subj: 

(0) Consolidated Space Operations Center (C30C), 091S40Z 

298. (C) Msg, CINCAD to CSAF Wash DC et al, subj: (U) Con- 
solidated Space Operations Center, W2045Z Jul 79. 

299. (C) Msg, HQ USAF to HQ AFSC et al, subj: CSOC Site Sur- 
vey (U), 2319407. Aug 79. 

300. (U) Msg, ADCOM to HQ USAF et al, subj: CSOC Site Sur- 
vey (II), 301330Z Aug 79. 

301. (U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/CS et al from Col William 
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: 
CSOC Site Survey (D), 14 Sep 79. 

30Z. (C) Msg, CSAF to CINCAD et al, subj: Consolidated Space 
Operations Center (CSOC) "Site Selection (U), 2820S5Z 
Sep 79. 

303. (S) Ltr to Gen leu Allen, Jr. from Gen Janes E. Hill, 
no subj, 4 Oct 79. 

304. (II) Msg, OSAF to HQ AFSC et al, subj: CSOC/MORAD Pub- 
lic Announcement, 2OZ0O0Z Dec 79. 

305. (S) Ltr to All DCS's and Chiefs of Special Staff Ele- 
ments ACOC/CC from Maj Gen Robert If. Fye, Chief of 
Staff, subj: Implementation of SPADOC Phase One, 9 May 
79, 1 atch. 

506. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen 
filliam E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, 
subj: Status of SPADCCS/SPADOC, 31 Jan 79. 

307. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et a]_ fro", Col Ifilliam 
S. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subi; 
Status of SPADCCS/SPADOC, 23 Feb 79. 

308. (S) Memo to SecAF from Dr. Gerald P. Dinneen, Asst Sec 
of Defense (C3l), subj: Space Defense Operations Cen- 
ter (U), 1 Mar 79, 1 atch. 

309. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/OI et_ al from Lt Col Hal- 
ter N. Ague, Executive Officer, DCS/?lans and Programs, 
subj: Auoroval of SPADOC Implementation Plan (U), 5 
Apr 79." 

310. (S) Memo to DCSs and Chiefs of Special Staff Elements 
ACOC/CC from Maj Gen Robert If. Fye, Chief of Staff, 
subj: Phase I SPADOC Activation Plan, 16 Jul 79, 1 

311. (S) Ltr to HQ USAF/XOO from Brig Gen Killiait E. Linde- 
man,' DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: Identification 
of Interfacing Agencies, 13 Jul 79. 

312. (5) Staff Summary Sheet to A/IS et aj_ from Col William 
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: 
SPADOC Team Visit to Wash DC Area, 26 Sep 79, 1 atch. 

313. ■ (5) Msg, ADCOM to HQ USAF et al, subj: PMD Direction 
for SPADOC Interfaces {0), 1916502 Dec 79. 

314. (S) Talking Paper, "ASAT System Development (U)", 29 
Feb 80, 1 atch. 

315. (S) Staff Sumnary Sheet to A/CS et al_ from Brig Gen 
William E. Undeman, DCS/Plans an3 Programs, ADCOM, 
subj: Space Defense Program Status (U), 2 Apr 79, 2 

316. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Col William 
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/PIans and Programs, ADCOM, subj : 
Space Defense System Program Status (U), 19 Jan 79. 

317. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen 
William E. Lindeaan, DCS/PIans and" Programs, ADCOM, 
subj: Space Defense System Program Status (0), 1 Mar 

318. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et a]_ from Col William 
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/PIans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: 
Space Defense System Program Status (U), 21 Mar 79. 

319. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Col William 
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/PIans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: 
Space Defense System Program Status (U), 20 Apr 79. 

320. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO'et al froi Col William 
R. Kenty, Asst OCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: 
Space Defense System Program Status (U), 16 May 79. 

321. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Col Louis 
L. Churchill, Acting DCS/?lans and" Programs, ADCOM, 
subj: Space Defense System Program Status [U), 20 Jun 

(S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen 
William E. Lindenaii, DCS/PIans and" Programs, ADCOM, 
subj: Space Defense System Program Status, 39 Jul 79. 

(S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/CS et al_ from Brig Gen 
William E. lindeman, DCS/PIans an? Programs, ADCOM, 
subj: Executive Summary-Kigh Energy Laser Technology 
Applications Study, 12 Jan 79, 

(S) Background Paper, "The USAF Antisatellite iA.SAT) 

325. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/CS et Rl from Col Billia 
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/PIans and Programs, ADCOM 26 Sep 
79, 1 atch. 

326. (S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/CS et al from Col Killia 
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/PIans and Program's, ADCOM, subj' 
Air Launch Miniature System Operational Concept, 3 l : e 

327. (S) Msg, ADCOM to SAMSO LA AFS CA et si_, subj: Proto- 

type Miniature Air Launched Segment (PMALS) Limited 
Operational Capability (LOC) (U), 4 Apr 79. 

(S) Msg, A0COM to SAMSO LA AFS CA et. si, sub j ; 
Prototype Miniature Air Launched Segment (PJWLS) Lim* 
ited Operational Capability, 18 Apr 79. 

(S) Msg, AFSC Andreas AFB MD to HQ IJSAF, subj: Space 
Defense System Program Limited Operational Capability 
(LOC)(U), 041135Z May 79. 

(S) Msg, ADCOM to JCS hash DC, subj: Space Defense 
System Program Limited Operational Capability (LOC) 
(U), 25 May 79. 

(S) Msg, ADCOM to SAMSO LA AFS CA et al, subj: Space 
Defense Program User Concerns, 25 May 79. 

(IJ) Staff Summary Sheet to A/CS et j2 - r<ra Col William 
R. Kenty, Asst DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, subj: 
Space Systems Orientation Visit, 50-31 Jul 79, 23 Jul 
79, 1 atch. 

(S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/CS et al from Brig Gen 
William E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans aid" Prograias, ADCOM, 
subj: Background Paper on ASAT Requirements Briefing, 
30 Oct 79, 1 atch. 

(S) Ltr to Admiral Daniel J. Murphy (Ret) from Gen 
James E. Kill, no subj, i Dec 79..' 

(S) Staff Summary Sheet to A/DO et al from Brig Gen 
Killiaa E. Lindeman, DCS/Plans and Programs, ADCOM, 
subj: Interpretation of ADCOM Mission, 13 Oct 73, 1 

56. (U) Memo to ADCOM/XP from ADCOM DO, sub]: Interpreta- 
tion of ADCOM Mission, 9 Soy 78, 1 atch. 

37. (U) Memo to ADC0M/D0 et al from CC, subj: Interpreta- 
tion of CINCAD Responsibility and Authority in the Area 
of Satellite Survivability, 11 Jun 79. 

.38. (U) interest Paper, "Summary of 15 SR JSS Transition 

(II) Newspaper article, "JSS Implementation is Conti 
ing on Schedule", The Defense Line , June 79. 

(U) Staff Summary Sheet to A/LG et al from Brig Gen 
William E. Lindeman, DCs/Plans an! Programs, ADCOM, 
subj: JSS Conversion Problem- 21st Air Division, 16 Jul 
79, 1 atch. 

342. (U) ADCOM Programmed Action Directive (U), subj: Inac- 
tivation 780 8ADS, Fortuna AFS HI), March 79. 

343. (0) ADCOM Programmed Action Directive (U), subj: Acti- 
vation OLAE, Finley City ND and Inactivation 785 RADS, 
Finley AFS ND, April 79. 

344. (U) ADCOM Programmed Action Directive (tl), sv-bj: Inac- 
tivation 778 RADS, Havre AFS MT,' March 1979. 

545. (U) ADCOM Programmed Action Directive (U), subj: Inac- 
tivation 786 RADS, Minot AFS ND, March 1979. 

(U) Msg, ADCOM to 23AD Duluth LAP MN et al, subj: 
AD Transition to JSS, 1115152 May 79. 

348. (FOUO) Talki„» Pi 
JSS", 11 Sep 79, 

(U) ADCOM Programmed Action Directive (U), subj: 
tivation 755 RADS, Sault Sainte Marie AFS MI, Ju 

ft!) ADCOM Programmed Action Directive (II), subj: Act 
vat ion Operating Location AC 23 ADS, .lashuauk City, 
August 1979. 

(U) Interest Paper, "JSS Actions Pertaining to 26AD" 

(U) Msg ZONORAD Rgn Ft lee AFS VA to HQ ADCOM et al, 
subj: Closure to Dauphin Island Sensor Facility, 
20Z000Z Jul 79. 

(U) Memo to ADCOM/XPAS et al from Col William H. Riley, 
Director of Command § Control Systems, subj: Dauphin 
Island, AL, Height Finder (HF) Radar and UHF Radios, 
50 Jul 79. 

(U) Memo to ADCOM/IGXP et al from ADCOM/XPAS, subj : 
Dauphin Island ContractTlaintenance, 1 Aug 79, 1 atch. 

(0) Msg, ADCOM to 20NR Ft Lee AFS VA et al, subj: 
Closure to Dauphin Island Sensor Facility, YR 2020002 
Jul 79; 241S0OZ AUG 79. 

(IT) Msg, Defense Fuel Region SE Tyndall AFE FL to HQ 
AFSC Andrews AFB MD et al, subj: Effects of Hurricane 
Frederic on DFR-SE Resupply Capability, 191400ZSEP79. 

(U) Msg, HQ ADCOM to 3246 Test Wing Eglin AFB et al, 
subj: Emergency Priority Assistance for OLAE 678 ADG, 
Dauphin Island, Al, 2022302 Sep 79, 

(U) Msg, ZONORAD Rgn Ft Lee AFS VA to HQ ADCOM et al, 
subi: Dauphin Island, Recovery from Hurricane Frederick, 
201410Z Sep 79. 

(II) Msg, CIHC80RAD to ZONORAD Rgn Ft Lee AFS VA et al, 
subj: Dauphin Island, Recovery from Hurricane FreJeuck, 
271800Z Sep 79. 

564. .(FOUO) Msg, OSAF to ALMAJCOM et al, subj: Joint Sur- 
veillance System/Region Operations Control, 2818301 
Mar 79. 

365. (S) Msg, CINCAD to AIG 951, subj: Commander ' s Semi- 
Annual Summary 1 April-30 September 1979, Oct 79. 

366. (Uj Memo to NORAD/XPA from Col William H. Riley/NORAD/ 
DOC, subj: Relocation of ROCCs, 28 Feb 79. 

567. (U) Talking Paper, "SIS Region Operations Control Center 
(R0CC), 16 Apr 79. 

568. (I!) Memo to NORAD/DOC from Col ?rank R. Kisneski/NORAD/ 
XI'A, subj: Relocation of ROCCs, 2 Mar 79. 

369. (U) Memo to NORAD/XPAS from Col William H. Riley/NORAD/ 
DOC, sub;: JSS/ROCC Site Designators, 5 Dec 79, 1 atch, 

370. (U) Memo to 20 ADCOM Rgn/DO et al from DOC, subj: Joint 
Surveillance System (JS3) Site Designators, 28 Mar 78, 

1 atch. 

371. (U) Msg, HQ AFTEC to HQ USAF et al_, subj: Over-the- 
Horizon Experimental Radar System Test Schedule, 182131Z 
Jan 79. 

372. (U) Hsg, HQ AFTEC to HQ USAF et al, subj: Over-the- 
Horizon Experimental Radar System Test Schedule, 022132Z 
Feb 79. 

373. (U) Hsg, HQ AFTEC to HQ ADCOM, subj: Initial Operational 
Test and Evaluation (IOT6E) of the Over-the-Horizon 
Backscatter Experimental Radar SysteB (ERS), 072O3OZ 
May 79. 

374. (U) Msg, HQ ADCOM to HQ ESD Hanscoo AFB MA et a2, subj: 
Program Assessment Reviev for CONIIS OTH-B, Osy 79. 

375. (U) Msg, HQ ESD Hanscom AFB MA to HQ AFTEC et al, Subj: 
COSUS OTH-B Test Scheduled, 21191SZ May 79. 

376. (tl) Msg, HQ AFTEC to USAF et al, subj: Over-the-Hori:on 
Backscatter (OTH-B) Experimental Radar System (ERS) 
IOT5E, 0620402 Jul 79. 

377. (U) Msg, ESD Hanscom AFB MA to HQ ADCOM et al, subj: 
CONUS OTH-B Radar Schedule, 061S002 Aug 79. 

378. (S) Talking Paper, "CONUS Over-the-Horizon Backscatter 
(OTHB) Radar System (U)", IS Mar 79. 

379. (S) Msg, USAF to HQ AFSC et al, subj: Postponement of 
OTH-B Testing (U), Z01345Z Sep 79. 

580. (U) Msg, ESD to HQ AFSC et al, subj: Postponeuent of 
CONUS OTH-B Testing (Your Msg, 211742 Sep 79), 031900Z 
Oct 79. 

381. (U) Hsg, HQ AFTEC to ESD et a[, subj: Postponement of 
CONUS OTH-B Testing, 1216522 Oct 79. 

3S2. (S) Msg, USAF to AFSC et il, subj: Postponement of OTH- 
B Testing (U), 0S1830Z Dec 79. 

(U) Memo to ADCOM/ACB from Col John E. Perkins/ADCOM/ 
XPAS, subj : Seel Skyhook 05M Funding, 22 Jan 79, 1 

(tl) Memo to Dot 1 SAMTK/70EP fro» XPAS, subj: AN/ 
FYQ-47 Maintenance Manning for Cudjoe Key AFS Fl, 
24 Jan 79. 

(U) Talking Paper, "Seek Skyhook {Aerostat-Borne Radar 
System)", 15 Mar 79. 

(S) Memo to ADCOM/XPAS from Col h'illiai H. Riley/ADCOM/ 
DOC, subj: Seek Skyhook Operational Need/Utility (il), 
27 Jul 79. 

(U) Msg, ADCOM to JCS Hash DC et al, subj: Radar Cov- 
erage of Southern Approaches to CONOS your classified 
JCS/J3 B11252Z Nov 79, Subj as above, 1323002 Nov 79. 

(C) Msg, 20NORAD Rgn to HQ ADCOM et al, subj; Seek 
Skyhook Project (li), 1419502 Dec 79. 

(II) Msg, ADCOM to JCS Sash DC et al, subj: Seek Skyhook 

(S) Msg, USAF to TAC Langley AFB VA et al, subj: E-3A 
Planning Data (0), 202030Z Jul 79. 

(S) Memo to ADCOM COC/DB from Maj Gen Bruce K. Brora/ 
DO, subj: Commander's Semiannual Summary (SITREP) (CS 
ltr, 7 Mar 1979),' 50 Mar 79, 1 atch. 

(U) Msg, HQ N0RAD to NDHQ Ottana CM et al, subj: SORAD/ 
ADCOM Digital Interface Svstem (SADIST Demonstration, 
10 Dec 79, 191830Z Nov 79. 

(U) Staff Summary Sheet to N/A XP et al from drafter: 
Capt Magee, subj: SIORAD/ADCOM E-3A Communications Plan, 
25 ApT 79. 

(0) Memo to N0RAD/XPA from NORAD/DOC, subj: Statement 
of Operational Need (SON) for NORAD/ADCOM E-SA Battle 
Staff Enhancements (U) , 27 Apr 79. 

(S) Msg, 25 N0RAD Rgn McChord AFB IfA to C1..JX0RAD, subj: 
Comrander's SITREP Report (U) , 301915Z Apr 79. 

(U) Ltr to Gen Kilbur L. Creech from Gen James E. Hill, 
no subj, 30 Apr 79, 

397. (S) Operational Evaluation Report of the ZSth NORAD 
Region, 19-29 August 1979. 

398. (S) Memo to (distribution list not attached) froa Col 
R. It. Mortos/XPA, subj: Statement of Operational Need 
(SON) for NORAD/ADCOM E-3A Battle Staff Enhanceaents 
(ANCHOR CROWN) (U), 18 Oct 79. 

(U) Msg, NORAD to TAC Langley AFB VA et al, subj: 
NORAD E-3A Battle Staff Requirements, "o"61i00Z Jul 79. 

(S) Memo to All ASCOH Rngs/CC et al from CS, subj: 
What's Going On (II), 11 Sep 79. 

(S) Msg, CINCAD to JCS Kash DC, subj: 17th DSES Deac- 
tivation, 091930Z Jan 79. 

of 17th DSES (S)" 

(C) Msg, USAF to HQ ADCOM et al, subj: EB-57 Prograa- 
aing and Training Requirements (If), 061950Z Feb 79. 

(U) Msg, CINCAD to USAF et al, subj: Electronic Coun- 
teraeasures Training for Interceptor Aircrews, 011S30Z 
May 79. 

(S) Msg, ADCOM to USAF et al, subj: EB-57 Tasking (U), 
ZS2Z20Z May 79. 

(S) Interest Paper, "EB-57 Oplan 4409", 27 Apr 79. 

(U) Msg, ADCOM to USAF, subj: Request for DSEG Active 
Duty Augmentation, 202000Z jun 79. 

(U.) Msg, ADCOM to 24AD Malistrou AF6 MT, subj: Inacti- 
vation of 17 DSES, 12 Sep 79. 

(U) ADC Special Order, G- 133, 18 July 79. 

(II) ADCOM Programmed Action Directive (U), subj: Inac- 
tivation 17 DSES Malmstroi AFB MT, May 1979. 

413. (C) Msg, USAF to ADCOH, subj: £arly Closure of the 1? 
Defensive System Evaluation Sq, (DSES) (U), 1620002 
Apr 79. 

414. (U) Msg, CINCAD to HQ USAF et al, subj: Permanent Dis- 
play of EB-S7 Aircraft,. 2623T02 Apr 79. 

415. (S) Msg, NORAD COC to AMCC Ft Ritchie MO et al, subj: 
NORAD Force Summary as of 20 Dec 79, 2016251 Bee 79. 

416. (II) ADC Movement Order MO-1, 1 Nov 78. 

417. (S) Msg, HQ DA Bash DC to CDRFORSCOM Ft McPherson GA 
et al, subj: Any CONUS and Alaska Air Defense (U), 
042ST52 Jan 79. 

418. (S) Memo to ADCOM/CS et al ADCOM/DO, subj: CONUS/ 
Alaska Air Defense (UJ7 17 Jan 79. 

419. (S) Msg, HQ USAF to HQ ADCOM et al, subj: Removal of 
ADA (U), 2718152 Jan 79. 

420. (S) Msg, HQ AAC Elmendorf AFB AK to HQ USAF et al, 
subj: Removal of ADA (U), 2S0S002Jan?9. 

(S) Staff Summary- Sheet to N/CS et al_ from Maj Gen 
Bruce K. Brown, DCS/Operations, subj: Removal of ADA 
(U), 1 Feb 79. 

■ COSUS and Alaska Air De- 

424.. (S) Talking Paper, "ADA Loss in Florida", 13 Mar 79. 

42S. (S) Memo for the Sec of Defense from Gen Bernard h'. 
Rogers, Acting Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, subj: 
Amy COSUS and Alaska Air Defense (U), 13 Feb 79, 1 

(S) Memo for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff et 
a[ from Deputy C. h'. Duncan, Sec of Defense, subj: Army 
COSUS and Alaska Air Defense (U), 28 Mar 79. 

(S) Msg, HQDA to CDRFORSCOM et al, subj: Arev COSUS 8 
Alaska Air Defense (U), 022i5lTA> 79. 

428. (U) Msg, JCS to CINCAD et al, subj: Amy CONUS/Alaska 
ADA, 061542Z Apr 79. ~ 

129. (FOUO) Msg, CDRFORSCOM to CDR 31st ADA BDE et al, subj: 
Amy COWS/Alasb. ADA, 092O12Z Apr 79. ■. 

130. (0) Msg, CDR DSAMILPFRCEK Alex VA to AIG 9176 et al, 
subj: Personnel on Orders to the 31st ADA BDE, Home- 
stead, FL, 111000Z Apr 79, 

431. (B) Msg, CINCNORAD to CDR 31st ADA BDE et al, subj: 
Amy CONUS/Alaska ABA, 132157Z Apr 79. 

432. (U) N/A Pamphlet 20-5, MAD, ADC, IS Mar 79. 

133. (W) Msg, NO HQ OTTAWA to NDHQ/AU OTTASA et al, subj: 
Posting Instruction CPCSA No 536, 201240Z Mar 78. 

431. (U) Newspaper article, "Key Posts Change Hands at Head- 
quarters" and "Colonel Lang dies suddenly; distinguished 
career spanned 30 years". The Defense Line , Aug 79, 

(ADCOM) Spe- 

(S) Memo to All NORAD/ADCOM/ADC DCS and Chiefs of 
Special Staff Elements fron CS, subj: Identification 
of Parent Command (U), 25 Feb 80.